Tithe vs taxes

[Bubba_Switzler]

Tithing means, literally, giving 10% (the Church and/or charity) or, more generally, giving a regular amount.

jimmyakin.org/2006/02/tithing_giving_.html

While giving is generally encouraged, the amount requested is usually much less than 10%.

By contrast, modern taxes range well above 10%, in some cases up to 90%. And unlike the tithe, it is not voluntary.

And long gone are the days that taxes principally represented payment for government services. Today the bulk of taxes fund social programs of one form or another.

What’s interesting to me here is that many Bishops, and Catholics generally, seem to view high taxes favorably. And many Catholic organizations and charities, in turn, contract to provide services in whole or part funded by such taxes.

The net result is that Catholic teaching is downplaying charity in favor of welfare.

One solution to this situation would be to make charitable donations tax deductions instead of tax credits.

But I wonder if there is a reluctance on the part of the Church to perform the functions that it did before the advent of the welfare state.

What do you think?

 

[Joe_5859]

What’s interesting to me here is that many Bishops, and Catholics generally, seem to view high taxes favorably.

I think this is a statement that requires documentation before I would buy it.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I think this is a statement that requires documentation before I would buy it.

Every legislative proposal for more spending on social programs has been embraced by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops including, most recently, nationalized health care. More spending requires more, not less, taxes.

Additionally, most high-profile Catholic politicians consistently favor higher taxes (e.g. Pelosi, Kerry, Kennedy (late)) and Catholic voters generally favor the same. And they oppose lower taxes primarly on the grounds that it would harm the poor and needy.

I can’t think of a single instance where a Catholic bishop or high profile Catholic politician has argued, on theological or practical grounds, for a social function to be administered by the Church through charitable donations rather than by the state through taxes.

 

[Joe_5859]

Every legislative proposal for more spending on social programs has been embraced by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops including, most recently, nationalized health care. More spending requires more, not less, taxes.

Additionally, most high-profile Catholic politicians consistently favor higher taxes (e.g. Pelosi, Kerry, Kennedy (late)) and Catholic voters generally favor the same. And they oppose lower taxes primarly on the grounds that it would harm the poor and needy.

I can’t think of a single instance where a Catholic bishop or high profile Catholic politician has argued, on theological or practical grounds, for a social function to be administered by the Church through charitable donations rather than by the state through taxes.

Again, documentation? Which legislative proposals? What statements prove that any bishop let alone the USCCB as a whole “embraced” what you are asserting.

Sorry, I see a lot of conjecture based on hearsay, but no facts to back it up.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Again, documentation? Which legislative proposals? What statements prove that any bishop let alone the USCCB as a whole “embraced” what you are asserting.

Sorry, I see a lot of conjecture based on hearsay, but no facts to back it up.

USCCB Position on Health Care Reform

a truly universal health policy with respect for human life and dignity
access for all with a special concern for the poor and inclusion of immigrants
pursuing the common good and preserving pluralism including freedom of conscience and variety of options
restraining costs and applying them equitably across the spectrum of payers

nccbuscc.org/healthcare/

 

[Joe_5859]

USCCB Position on Health Care Reform

a truly universal health policy with respect for human life and dignity
access for all with a special concern for the poor and inclusion of immigrants
pursuing the common good and preserving pluralism including freedom of conscience and variety of options
restraining costs and applying them equitably across the spectrum of payers

nccbuscc.org/healthcare/

Thank you for providing a source.

However, these are general principles, not policy guidelines. There is nothing here that indicates the bishops are in favor of high taxes to finance equitable health care. There are several ways to go about achieving these goals.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Thank you for providing a source. However, these are general principles, not policy guidelines. There is nothing here that indicates the bishops are in favor of high taxes to finance equitable health care. There are several ways to go about achieving these goals.

This source is sufficient to demonstrate my point unless you are suggesting that the Bishops believe in fiscal miracles. You will note, further, from the other material on the page, that the only objection that the Bishops had to the Obamacare legislation was it’s potential support for taxpayer funded abortion.

 

[Joe_5859]

This source is sufficient to demonstrate my point unless you are suggesting that the Bishops believe in fiscal miracles. You will note, further, from the other material on the page, that the only objection that the Bishops had to the Obamacare legislation was it’s potential support for taxpayer funded abortion.

So you can show me precisely where the bishops or any bishops specifically state that they think high(er) taxes are the answer and are a good thing? If not, them why are you jumping to that conclusion?

One could achieve what the bishops put forth by either charitable giving or better use of the tax money that is already being collected. There is nothing the bishops say that contradicts such a possibility.

Also, no where does it say that the only objection to Obama’s health care plan is taxpayer funded abortion. That is the one they highlight as it is the most important, but that doesn’t mean they would whole-heartedly endorse the whole thing if that one thing were changed. That is, unless I missed the bishops specifically stating that this was the one and only thing that needed to be changed in order to make the health care plan the best idea in the world.

 

[puzzleannie]

What’s interesting to me here is that many Bishops, and Catholics generally, seem to view high taxes favorably. And many Catholic organizations and charities, in turn, contract to provide services in whole or part funded by such taxes.

The net result is that Catholic teaching is downplaying charity in favor of welfare.

?

do you have a source for these claims? it is certainly contrary to my understanding of Catholic social justice teaching

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

do you have a source for these claims? it is certainly contrary to my understanding of Catholic social justice teaching

See aboe where I quoted the USCCB advocacy of universal health care. Other examples abound but this is sufficient to demonstrate the point. It is also based upon many discussions with Catholics who are firmly of the opinion that they must, as Catholics, support universal (i.e. socialized) health care and oppose efforts to shrink the role of government.

I am curious, what is your understanding of Catholic social justice teaching?

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

So you can show me precisely where the bishops or any bishops specifically state that they think high(er) taxes are the answer and are a good thing? If not, them why are you jumping to that conclusion?

I am “jumping” to a logical conclusion.

One could achieve what the bishops put forth by either charitable giving or better use of the tax money that is already being collected. There is nothing the bishops say that contradicts such a possibility.

Now you are being talmudic in your interpretation.

Let’s set aside universal understanding of the term “universal health policy” as being that legislated by secular government bodies in one form or another.

The bishops are not mere theologians pontificating on social policy, they are the leaders of the Catholic Church and directly or indirectly responsible for both many of the very institutions that provide health care as well as very large section of the taxpaying population.

That is why I posed the question as I did: tithe vs. taxation. If we were to observed a man standing on the bank of a river pointing to a drowning man and declaring that a rescue must be initiated, we would reasonably assume that he was expecting somebody else to do the rescuing. So it is with the Bishops.

Also, no where does it say that the only objection to Obama’s health care plan is taxpayer funded abortion. That is the one they highlight as it is the most important, but that doesn’t mean they would whole-heartedly endorse the whole thing if that one thing were changed. That is, unless I missed the bishops specifically stating that this was the one and only thing that needed to be changed in order to make the health care plan the best idea in the world.

We’re not discussing various minutea of detail but the gross outlines of the policy. During the previous deliberations the public and politicians were led to believe that the Bishops would be quite satisfied with Obamacare if only it prohibited public funding of abortion.

What we did not hear from the Bishops is anything along the lines of “let’s take care of this ourselves.”

 

[kentuckyliz]

If you oppose high taxes and Obamacare in favor of private charitable action, I know a hardworking and worthy family without health insurance. I can hook you up if you want to sponsor their health insurance.

 

[Warrenton]

Bubba_Switzler:
I think you are right on both counts that this thread followed.

First, the bishops should be urging us to tithe.

The bishops should be demanding that the government lessen the tax burden in order that the faithful can tithe. And not urging the government to lessen taxes for all, just Catholics who tithe.

Second, you are correct. Insofar as the bishops consistently support more government spending, they also support of necessity higher taxes.

The fact that there may be a better way for the government to run its financial house is neither here nor there. Everyone knows that the government is in debt, and plans to remain in debt. The only way it can do anything is to tax the people.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I think you are right on both counts that this thread followed.

First, the bishops should be urging us to tithe.

The bishops should be demanding that the government lessen the tax burden in order that the faithful can tithe. And not urging the government to lessen taxes for all, just Catholics who tithe.

Second, you are correct. Insofar as the bishops consistently support more government spending, they also support of necessity higher taxes.

The fact that there may be a better way for the government to run its financial house is neither here nor there. Everyone knows that the government is in debt, and plans to remain in debt. The only way it can do anything is to tax the people.

Thanks for your comments (and not just becase you seem to agree with me).

Why the hesitation to tithe? I would even go so far as to suggest a progressive tithe.

I have heard some explanations but not fit with the facts. The best explanation may be that the Bishops don’t want to risk being corrupted by the responsibility of managing such finances. The last time the Church was flush with cash we had a Reformation.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Our bishops don’t “demand” because they are following the lead of their leader(Jesus). Our faith, and our response to it, is drawn from us by invitation rather than being forced on us by coersion.

Of course, the Bishops have no power of coersion comparable to the state. The most that Bishops can do is excomunicate.

However, Bishops are cheering on the state which does have the power of coersion, as for example in the case of socialized health care.

 

[Warrenton]

I would even go so far as to suggest a progressive tithe.

I have heard some explanations but not fit with the facts. The best explanation may be that the Bishops don’t want to risk being corrupted by the responsibility of managing such finances. The last time the Church was flush with cash we had a Reformation.

Here is my plan. The Church sets up a voluntary tithing system. Then, armed with data on how many people are tithing, it presses congress to grant a below the line deduction for those who tithe.

The flip side: The Church must use this money for charity, not social justice, as we were talking. And not for building more “churches in the round.”

By charity I mean schools, food for the poor, housing for the poor. I think the Church should buy farms, build housing on the farms and small schools, and distribute the food grown there to the poor in the cities.

That kind of charity reduces the burden on government, would work better than what the government does, and would encourage more Catholics to render the tithe.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Here is my plan. The Church sets up a voluntary tithing system. Then, armed with data on how many people are tithing, it presses congress to grant a below the line deduction for those who tithe.

The flip side: The Church must use this money for charity, not social justice, as we were talking. And not for building more “churches in the round.”

By charity I mean schools, food for the poor, housing for the poor. I think the Church should buy farms, build housing on the farms and small schools, and distribute the food grown there to the poor in the cities.

That kind of charity reduces the burden on government, would work better than what the government does, and would encourage more Catholics to render the tithe.

I was thinking about this last night.

First, I think these should be tax credits, not deductions (I got this backwards in a previous post). Tax credits directly reduce taxes owed.

Second, they have to be available to anyone, not just Catholics. (Obviously, but had to say it.)

Third, the qualifcation can initially be stated most simply as any function that relives the government of burdens. Eventually this could be generalized or itemized. For example, the government would determine that the poor should have health care and then it becomes a charitable tax credit to provide health care to the poor.

Naturally the Church would thrive in such an environment.

 

[GodLovesTheSpek]

Taxes: Rendering unto Caesar
Charity: Freely giving to God

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Taxes: Rendering unto Caesar
Charity: Freely giving to God

What do we do then with Bishops who favor rendering unto Caesar over giving to God?

 

[Warrenton]

Taxes: Rendering unto Caesar
Charity: Freely giving to God

There are limitations in justice to the former. There are no limits to the latter.

When the burden of taxation prevents the Christian from freely giving for the love of neighbor and God, then the tax burden is unjust.

Christians, in charity, have the obligation to speak out against injustice.