Taxation and the Church

[Vouthon]

In another thread someone brought up the issue of taxation. I think this is an interesting topic.

Here are some quotations from magisterial and episcopal documents on taxes. Please give me your judgement as to what they are suggesting:

“…As regards taxation, assessment according to ability to pay is fundamental to a just and equitable system…”

***- Blessed John XXIII (Mater et Magistra), 1959 (#132) ***

“…The tax system should be continually evaluated in terms of its impact on the poor…First, the tax system should raise adequate revenues to pay for the public needs of society, especially to meet the basic needs of the poor. Secondly, the tax system should be structured according to the principle of progressivity, so that those with relatively greater financial resources pay a higher rate of taxation. The inclusion of such a principle in tax policies is an important means of reducing the severe inequalities of income and wealth in the nation. … Thirdly, families below the official poverty line should not be required to pay income taxes. Such families are, by definition, without sufficient resources to purchase the basic necessities of life. They should not be forced to bear the additional burden of paying income taxes…More specifically, it is the responsibility of all citizens, acting through their government, to assist and empower the poor, the disadvantaged, the handicapped, and the unemployed…Government may levy the taxes necessary to meet these responsibilities, and citizens have a moral obligation to pay those taxes…”

***Economic Justice for All (#123), pastoral letter promulgated by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 1986 ***

"…Government officials, it is your concern to mobilize your peoples to form a more effective world solidarity, and above all to make them accept the necessary taxes on their luxuries and their wasteful expenditures, in order to bring about development and to save the peace…

The struggle against destitution, though urgent and necessary, is not enough. It is a question, rather, of building a world where every man, no matter what his race, religion or nationality, can live a fully human life, freed from servitude imposed on him by other men or by natural forces over which he has not sufficient control; a world where freedom is not an empty word and where the poor man Lazarus can sit down at the same table with the rich man. This demands great generosity, much sacrifice and unceasing effort on the part of the rich man.

Let each one examine his conscience, a conscience that conveys a new message for our times. Is he prepared to support out of his own pocket works and undertakings organized in favor of the most destitute?

Is he ready to pay higher taxes so that the public authorities can intensify their efforts in favor of development? Is he ready to pay a higher price for imported goods so that the producer may be more justly rewarded? Or to leave his country, if necessary and if he is young, in order to assist in this development of the young nations?.."

***- Blessed Paul VI (Populorum progression), 1967 (#84) ***

 

[christofirst]

I can tell you what it does** not **sound like:

It does not sound like the ill-conceived notion that taxes levied in a democratic society are in any way equivalent to theft or stealing.

It does not sound like the reactionary notion that a central government no longer has a good and necessary role to play in fulfilling our societal obligation to assist those in need, especially when the current need is far greater than the wished for, but all too often lacking, generosity of the well-to-do.

It does not sound like the burden of taxes, which the Church clearly acknowledges and even approves of for the most part, should fall primarily on those with less, but rather on those with more to spare.

 

[Vouthon]

I can tell you what it does** not **sound like:

It does not sound like the ill-conceived notion that taxes levied in a democratic society are in any way equivalent to theft or stealing.

It does not sound like the reactionary notion that a central government no longer has a good and necessary role to play in fulfilling our societal obligation to assist those in need, especially when the current need is far greater than the wished for, but all too often lacking, generosity of the well-to-do.

It does not sound like the burden of taxes, which the Church clearly acknowledges and even approves of for the most part, should fall primarily on those with less, but rather on those with more to spare.

Amen!!!

 

[christofirst]

Amen!!!

Here is another gem from Populorum Progressio, under the subtitle, The Common Good:

"24… Consequently, it is not permissible for citizens who have garnered sizable income from the resources and activities of their own nation to deposit a large portion of their income in foreign countries for the sake of their own private gain alone, taking no account for their country’s interests; in doing this, they clearly wrong their country."

Is this not a swipe at rich tax-dodgers with their off-shore accounts?

 

[JB_Dugan]

I can tell you what it does** not **sound like:

It does not sound like the ill-conceived notion that taxes levied in a democratic society are in any way equivalent to theft or stealing.

It may not sound that way but it is…

Donating to the Church to help the poor is a voluntary form of individual Christian benevolence. We do it because we want to do it.
Government Taxation by force is stealing and eliminates the virtue of charity. No one really wants to pay taxes and does so to avoid jail.

It does not sound like the reactionary notion that a central government no longer has a good and necessary role to play in fulfilling our societal obligation to assist those in need, especially when the current need is far greater than the wished for, but all too often lacking, generosity of the well-to-do.

The generosity of the well-to-do is the only source of funding for the Church. The taxes stolen from the well-to-do support governments.

How about a nice round of appreciation for the well-to-do rather than “gimmie more!”

It does not sound like the burden of taxes, which the Church clearly acknowledges and even approves of for the most part, should fall primarily on those with less, but rather on those with more to spare.

I believe that is the way our tax code works here in America. Those below the poverty line pay no income tax and actually receive tax refunds for the tax they did not pay. Is this a great country or what?

I think it would be more just if only those who pay income tax be allowed to vote.

 

[Sheeniac]

I’d like to submit that I am taxed enough already. I’ve often wondered whether this part of the Church’s teachings should take the same status of ‘religious liberty’ which has changed dramatically given that we no longer have ‘Catholic States’.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

It may not sound that way but it is…

Government Taxation by force is stealing and eliminates the virtue of charity. No one really wants to pay taxes and does so to avoid jail.

Rather than responding to christofirst’s summary of what was quoted, I would like to see you make the same point you just made by refuting the quotes of John XXIII, the USCCB, and Paul VI made in the very first posting in this thread. Because I don’t see how you can maintain the position you do without rejecting those quoted statements.

 

[christofirst]

It may not sound that way but it is…
Donating to the Church to help the poor is a voluntary form of individual Christian benevolence. We do it because we want to do it.
Government Taxation by force is stealing and eliminates the virtue of charity. No one really wants to pay taxes and does so to avoid jail.
The generosity of the well-to-do is the only source of funding for the Church. The taxes stolen from the well-to-do support governments.
How about a nice round of appreciation for the well-to-do rather than “gimmie more!”
I believe that is the way our tax code works here in America. Those below the poverty line pay no income tax and actually receive tax refunds for the tax they did not pay. Is this a great country or what?
I think it would be more just if only those who pay income tax be allowed to vote.

Here is an interesting rebuttal to your “let private charity help the poor, the rich do enough already” argument, which I know you’ll be wanting to read . Its called, Why the Rich Don’t Give to Charity:

theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/04/why-the-rich-dont-give/309254/

But I am interested to know your response to the original post as well. What do you make of those quoted statements?

 

[JB_Dugan]

Rather than responding to christofirst’s summary of what was quoted, I would like to see you make the same point you just made by refuting the quotes of John XXIII, the USCCB, and Paul VI made in the very first posting in this thread. Because I don’t see how you can maintain the position you do without rejecting those quoted statements.

Glad to…

“…As regards taxation, assessment according to ability to pay is fundamental to a just and equitable system…”

• Blessed John XXIII (Mater et Magistra), 1959 (#132)

Taking only the quote posted above…I can’t reject it. I agree with it.

Pope John makes no mention of charity or the poor. He is outlining a just and equitable system based on the ability to pay by all. That means EVERYONE. In my estimation, if a government is going to steal from its citizens…it should steal from all.

Contimued…

 

[JB_Dugan]

“…The tax system should be continually evaluated in terms of its impact on the poor…First, the tax system should raise adequate revenues to pay for the public needs of society, especially to meet the basic needs of the poor. Secondly, the tax system should be structured according to the principle of progressivity, so that those with relatively greater financial resources pay a higher rate of taxation. The inclusion of such a principle in tax policies is an important means of reducing the severe inequalities of income and wealth in the nation. … Thirdly, families below the official poverty line should not be required to pay income taxes. Such families are, by definition, without sufficient resources to purchase the basic necessities of life. They should not be forced to bear the additional burden of paying income taxes…More specifically, it is the responsibility of all citizens, acting through their government, to assist and empower the poor, the disadvantaged, the handicapped, and the unemployed…Government may levy the taxes necessary to meet these responsibilities, and citizens have a moral obligation to pay those taxes…”

Economic Justice for All (#123), pastoral letter promulgated by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 1986

Here the Catholic Bishops pretty much describe the existing tax system of the United States. So what is there to reject?

However it is wishful thinking on their part to expect the government to care for the poor.
They say: “Government may levy the taxes necessary to meet these responsibilities, and citizens have a moral obligation to pay those taxes…”

But they fail to DIRECT government to meet these responsibilities. Government “may” levy… but use the funds for another purpose. Happens all the time.

"…Government officials, it is your concern to mobilize your peoples to form a more effective world solidarity, and above all to make them accept the necessary taxes on their luxuries and their wasteful expenditures, in order to bring about development and to save the peace…

The struggle against destitution, though urgent and necessary, is not enough. It is a question, rather, of building a world where every man, no matter what his race, religion or nationality, can live a fully human life, freed from servitude imposed on him by other men or by natural forces over which he has not sufficient control; a world where freedom is not an empty word and where the poor man Lazarus can sit down at the same table with the rich man. This demands great generosity, much sacrifice and unceasing effort on the part of the rich man.

Let each one examine his conscience, a conscience that conveys a new message for our times. Is he prepared to support out of his own pocket works and undertakings organized in favor of the most destitute?

Is he ready to pay higher taxes so that the public authorities can intensify their efforts in favor of development? Is he ready to pay a higher price for imported goods so that the producer may be more justly rewarded? Or to leave his country, if necessary and if he is young, in order to assist in this development of the young nations?.."

• Blessed Paul VI (Populorum progression), 1967 (#84)

I believe Pope Paul VI is addressing the Italian government or some monarchy in the first statement. Here in our Republic form of government the people tell the government what to do.

His next paragraph is astounding. It is a perfect description of pure laissez-faire capitalism. It really demands no generosity or sacrifice by the rich man…only freedom, liberty and justice for all. How can I reject that?

He asks a grim question: “Is he ready to pay higher taxes so that the public authorities can intensify their efforts in favor of development?”

Answer: Of course…**.if **the public authorities will actually intensify their efforts as expected. But there is no guarantee…

Then he shows questionable economic grasp: “Is he ready to pay a higher price for imported goods so that the producer may be more justly rewarded?”

Well…right now the push is to pay higher prices and “buy American” in order to keep our jobs here at home. Are we obligated to also buy abroad so that producer can be justly rewarded??? What are we talking about here???

Really what is there to reject in any of the above? What we have in all the writings from the original post is nothing more than ramblings that have broad meanings that can be taken various ways. I hate to put it this way but it is all pap.

There are no condemnations or directives to Catholics, just a few “hints” that have different meanings.

Oh sure the Popes and Bishops can lay a guilt trip on the rich…but they are not going to push too far. The rich can always say…oh well, the church wants me to pay more taxes so I’ll skip my normal Sunday donations and not take advantage of a few deductions, pay more taxes…and then I’ll get to heaven. That leaves the Church high and dry and in the dangerous position of depending the government to do the work of God. They may just be making a pact with the devil.

 

[JB_Dugan]

Here is an interesting rebuttal to your “let private charity help the poor, the rich do enough already” argument, which I know you’ll be wanting to read . Its called, Why the Rich Don’t Give to Charity:

theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/04/why-the-rich-dont-give/309254/

But I am interested to know your response to the original post as well. What do you make of those quoted statements?

Interesting theory. It proves that most of the working class are really conservatives.

American generosity is not dependent on the government or public policy. It should be pointed out that conservatives, criticized by liberals as health care and welfare slashers and greedy capitalists, give far more to charity than liberals. Arthur Brooks wrote in his now-famous book, “Who Really Cares,” that households headed by conservatives give 30% more to charity than households headed by liberals. Conservatives also give more blood and donate more of their time to volunteer work, according to Brooks.

cnn.com/2011/12/15/opinion/bennett-generosity/

And i never said “let private charity help the poor, the rich do enough already”

The rich support private charity…duh!

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Here the Catholic Bishops pretty much describe the existing tax system of the United States. So what is there to reject?

…the existing tax system of the United States, which you have called theft. So you have rejected what you say is pretty much what the Catholic Bishops describe.

However it is wishful thinking on their part to expect the government to care for the poor.
They say: “Government may levy the taxes necessary to meet these responsibilities, and citizens have a moral obligation to pay those taxes…”

But they fail to DIRECT government to meet these responsibilities. Government “may” levy… but use the funds for another purpose. Happens all the time.

Do you call the US tax system theft? Or only those taxes that get misappropriated? It seems that in previous postings you based your “theft” argument exclusively on the non-voluntary nature of taxation. If a tax is not misappropriated, but is still non-voluntary, then is it still theft? If it is, and if you agree with the Bishops, then we are left with the uncomfortable conclusion that the Bishops are saying governments may steal from the people.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I believe Pope Paul VI is addressing the Italian government or some monarchy in the first statement. Here in our Republic form of government the people tell the government what to do.

The first line of that encyclical is
To the Bishops, Priests, Religious, and Faithful of the Whole Catholic World, and to All Men of Good Will.. That does not sound like it is addressed to just one country or just a few.

 

[Vouthon]

Glad to…

Pope John makes no mention of charity or the poor. He is outlining a just and equitable system based on the ability to pay by all. That means EVERYONE. In my estimation, if a government is going to steal from its citizens…it should steal from all.

Contimued…

Actually, what John XXIII said is that the burdens of tax must be ‘proportioned to the capacity of the people contributing’. In their 1986 document on the American economy, the bishops encouraged a progressive tax scheme based on this assessment according to ability.

 

[Vouthon]

His next paragraph is astounding. It is a perfect description of pure laissez-faire capitalism. It really demands no generosity or sacrifice by the rich man…only freedom, liberty and justice for all. How can I reject that?

Dugan, with all due respect your interpretation of Paul VI’s words above is so far off the mark that I cannot comprehend how you even reached such a conclusion.

The entire encyclical’s economic focus is directed towards combating the very “laissez-faire” capitalism that you, somehow, have claimed it supports. The encyclical was published to direct world economies to serve mankind and not the wealthy few.

This is made overt in section 33# of the encyclical:

33 Individual initiative alone and the interplay of competition will not ensure satisfactory development. We cannot proceed to increase the wealth and power of the rich while we entrench the needy in their poverty and add to the woes of the oppressed. Organized programs are necessary for “directing, stimulating, coordinating, supplying and integrating” (35) the work of individuals and intermediary organizations

In other words, Venerable Pope Paul VI is stating quite clearly that a free market, competition and self-interested private enterprise is not sufficient to ensure integral human development.

Earlier on in the encyclical he explicitly attacks the ideology of liberal capitalism:

Unbridled Liberalism

1. However, certain concepts have somehow arisen out of these new conditions and insinuated themselves into the fabric of human society. These concepts present profit as the chief spur to economic progress, free competition as the guiding norm of economics, and private ownership of the means of production as an absolute right, having no limits nor concomitant social obligations

This unbridled liberalism paves the way for a particular type of tyranny, rightly condemned by Our predecessor Pius XI, for it results in the “international imperialism of money.”(26)

Such improper manipulations of economic forces can never be condemned enough; let it be said once again that economics is supposed to be in the service of man. (27)

[This] type of capitalism, as it is commonly called, has given rise to hardships, unjust practices, and fratricidal conflicts that persist to this day…

This is reinforced later on in the encyclical, :

Market prices that are freely agreed upon can turn out to be most unfair. It must be avowed openly that, in this case, the fundamental tenet of liberalism (as it is called), as the norm for market dealings, is open to serious question…

This denunciation of liberal capitalistic economic theories was immediately recognized by the American Press back in 1967. Their response to the encyclical was scathing, accusing Pope Paul VI of espousing “souped-up Marxism”:

**Wall Street Journal (30 March 1967) 14. **“Pope Paul’s encyclical lends the mantle of religion to certain ideas which are profoundly secular in origin, and advocates programs of a type now undergoing widespread reappraisal by their one-time secular sponsors… **The trouble with making religious tenets of this souped-up Marxism ** is that it is highly unlikely to help the bulk of poor nations (which) suffer not from an excess of capitalism, but from a paucity of it… It is both curious and sad that these mistaken attitudes toward foreign aid should now be advanced from the realm of religion. For the realm of history, as more people are starting to recognize, shows that they impede rather than advance the development of peoples.”

**Time (7 April 1967) **70. The encyclical has a “radical tone,” and parts of it “had the strident tone of an early 20th century Marxist polemic.” Its "blunt attack on capitalism" is aimed at an old-style capitalism that is dead. “It was surprising that he did not acknowledge the way in which business enterprise has developed into a creative, socially conscious component of the industrial West.” Populorum Progressio was humanistic, “but its perspective was that of another time.”

The Economist (8 April 1967) 114. Some communist papers claimed that Pope Paul gives the imprimatur to Marx’s works, justifies revolutions, and condemns all capitalist and imperialist exploitation. Some right-wing newspapers seem unable to find words to discuss the encyclical at all. “Naturally the long papal message permits some picking and choosing. The communists who hailed it flatly ignored its equally flat condemnation of materialist ideologies**. In other quarters there was a tendency to ignore such crisp passages as that in which the Pope condemns rich men in poor countries who ‘selfishly transfer a large part of their funds abroad, heedless of the damage thus done to their own country**.’”

Sound familiar? American capitalists have responded exactly the same way to Pope Francis’s Evangelii Gaudium today in 2013.

 

[JB_Dugan]

…the existing tax system of the United States, which you have called theft. So you have rejected what you say is pretty much what the Catholic Bishops describe.

Do you call the US tax system theft? Or only those taxes that get misappropriated? It seems that in previous postings you based your “theft” argument exclusively on the non-voluntary nature of taxation. If a tax is not misappropriated, but is still non-voluntary, then is it still theft? If it is, and if you agree with the Bishops, then we are left with the uncomfortable conclusion that the Bishops are saying governments may steal from the people.

I really did not want to come right out and be blunt about it…but yes…the Bishops are, in fact, encouraging people to accept the theft of their money by a government as morally correct.

 

[JB_Dugan]

The first line of that encyclical is
To the Bishops, Priests, Religious, and Faithful of the Whole Catholic World, and to All Men of Good Will.. That does not sound like it is addressed to just one country or just a few.

The first line of the encyclical was not mentioned in the post.

 

[JB_Dugan]

Actually, what John XXIII said is that the burdens of tax must be ‘proportioned to the capacity of the people contributing’. In their 1986 document on the American economy, the bishops encouraged a progressive tax scheme based on this assessment according to ability.

Actually I am just responding to what you originally posted:

“…As regards taxation, assessment according to ability to pay is fundamental to a just and equitable system…”

• Blessed John XXIII (Mater et Magistra), 1959 (#132)"

…and what you quoted from the Bishops 1986 document appears to be a description of the U.S. Tax code. We DO have a progressive income tax…(the last time I checked)

So according to Pope JohnXXIII and the Bishops…the United States should be receiving their blessings and be an example to the world for having a “just and equitable system…”

 

[JB_Dugan]

Dugan, with all due respect your interpretation of Paul VI’s words above is so far off the mark that I cannot comprehend how you even reached such a conclusion.

The entire encyclical’s economic focus…

You didn’t post the entire encyclical. I just respond to what I see.

The struggle against destitution, though urgent and necessary, is not enough. It is a question, rather, of building a world where every man, no matter what his race, religion or nationality, can live a fully human life, freed from servitude imposed on him by other men or by natural forces over which he has not sufficient control; a world where freedom is not an empty word and where the poor man Lazarus can sit down at the same table with the rich man. This demands great generosity, much sacrifice and unceasing effort on the part of the rich man.

Compare that to this definition of laissez-faire capitalism:

“Capitalism demands the best of every man—his rationality—and rewards him accordingly. It leaves every man** free **to choose the work he likes, to specialize in it, to trade his product for the products of others, and to go as far on the road of achievement as his ability and ambition will carry him. His success depends on the objective value of his work and on the rationality of those who recognize that value. When men are free to trade, with reason and reality as their only arbiter, when no man may use physical force to extort the consent of another, it is the best product and the best judgment that win in every field of human endeavor, **and raise the standard of living—and of thought—ever higher for all those who take part in mankind’s productive activity.” **

I would say they are pretty similar…agree?

Then also add:

“Laissez-faire capitalism is the only social system based on the recognition of individual rights and, therefore, the only system that bans force from social relationships. By the nature of its basic principles and interests, it is the only system fundamentally opposed to war.”

 

[LeafByNiggle]

… this definition of laissez-faire capitalism:

“Capitalism demands the best of every man—his rationality—and rewards him accordingly. It leaves every man** free **to choose the work he likes, to specialize in it, to trade his product for the products of others, and to go as far on the road of achievement as his ability and ambition will carry him. His success depends on the objective value of his work and on the rationality of those who recognize that value. When men are free to trade, with reason and reality as their only arbiter, when no man may use physical force to extort the consent of another, it is the best product and the best judgment that win in every field of human endeavor, **and raise the standard of living—and of thought—ever higher for all those who take part in mankind’s productive activity.” **

Then also add:

“Laissez-faire capitalism is the only social system based on the recognition of individual rights and, therefore, the only system that bans force from social relationships. By the nature of its basic principles and interests, it is the only system fundamentally opposed to war.”

Note the claim that laissez-faire capitalism does not entail force or coercion is not entirely true.

Example: Suppose I own a drug company. I have spent years developing a wonderous drug that will greatly benefit sick people. Naturally I deserve to reap the profits of that development, so I price my drug accordingly. However another drug company comes along and analyzes the drug and learns how to duplicate it. They try to sell it at half the price that I charge, which they can easily do since they did not have to pay for all those years of development. But through the agency of patent laws, enforced by government, I can force and coerce that competitor to either pay me a royalty or stop selling the discounted drug. Without that coercion, in a true laissez-faire capitalist system where government takes a hands-off approach to interactions between businesses, drug companies could not afford to take such risks like a decade long development that is going to be copied by generic drug companies almost as soon as it comes out. So I guess your ideal of laissez-faire capitalism does not include government enforced patents. Too bad.