What makes taxation NOT theft?

[itsjustme]

What’s your solution?

I would really have to give this some serious thought. But I’m not immediately opposed to a sales tax on discretionary items. Because it would afford some measure of personal choice as to the amount of taxes that the individual must pay.

There may also be other means of raising revenue that I haven’t yet considered. I don’t spend a great deal of time worrying about things that I can’t control. The government is gonna do what the government is gonna do, and I’m not gonna worry about it.

 

[PetraG]

If the government under the authority of the electorate decides that taxation isn’t theft, that doesn’t make it true. Just as the government under the same authority can decide that abortion isn’t murder. That doesn’t make it true.

One more time: This is a question that the Church has already answered very clearly.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that paying taxes is a duty normally required in observance of the Fourth Commandment. It is not theft by the government, because the government rightly has the authority to levy taxes from its citizens, which the Church explains in the section covering the 7th Commandment.

In other words, what makes taxation NOT theft is that “political authority has the right and duty to regulate private ownership for the regulate the legitimate exercise of the right to ownership for the sake of the common good.” (CCC 2406)

CCC 2240 Submission to authority and co-responsibility for the common good make it morally obligatory to pay taxes, to exercise the right to vote, and to defend one’s country:

Pay to all of them their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.(Rom 13:7)

Christians reside in their own nations, but as resident aliens. They participate in all things as citizens and endure all things as foreigners. . . . They obey the established laws and their way of life surpasses the laws. . . . So noble is the position to which God has assigned them that they are not allowed to desert it.(Ad Diognetum 5,5 and 10; 6,10G 2,1173 and 1176)

The Apostle exhorts us to offer prayers and thanksgiving for kings and all who exercise authority, “that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way.” (1 Tim 2:2)

Under the teachings about the 7th Commandment, the Church teaches:
CCC 2401 The seventh commandment forbids unjustly taking or keeping the goods of one’s neighbor and wronging him in any way with respect to his goods. It commands justice and charity in the care of earthly goods and the fruits of men’s labor. For the sake of the common good, it requires respect for the universal destination of goods and respect for the right to private property. Christian life strives to order this world’s goods to God and to fraternal charity.
CCC 2406 Political authority has the right and duty to regulate the legitimate exercise of the right to ownership for the sake of the common good.

 

[LilyM]

Unfortunately, as a new member I reached the limit of my allowed posts yesterday, so I could no longer reply. Let me try again.

Erikaspirit16:

Let’s say you don’t pay taxes, even though you have enough money to do so. You are a thief. Why?

-you are using roads you did not pay for
-you are using airports you did not pay for (and so on)
-you are relying on the fire dept. to take care of you
-you rely on police protection
-you send your children to public schools you did not pay for
-you benefit because people have access to the emergency room rather than dying on your front lawn
-you don’t have to worry about invaders looting your house and city

And so on for a very, very long list. So if you do not pay taxes, you are a thief, because you are receiving these benefits without payment. Shame on you!

The same argument could well have been made by 17th century white landowners in the American south. Look at how good I am to you slaves. I give you a roof over your head, clothes on your back, and food to eat. I teach you a skill, and if you’re obedient to my rules then I am fair, and just, and kind to you. And all that I expect is that you give me an honest days work in return for all that I have provided you with. To do any less would be to take advantage of my good graces.

And yet somehow you think that I am the one in the wrong here. But it’s not I who am in the wrong, it’s you rebellious slaves who refuse to remit to me that which you are ethically obligated to. Society has rules after all, and it’s you who are in the wrong if you don’t obediently adhere to them.

Yes, society provides people with certain services. Services that society believes are in its own best interest. But the benefits of those services aren’t equally distributed. They’re biased toward the rich and powerful, who provide them ostensibly for the benefit of all, but which do in fact inequitably benefit themselves.

The poor serve the rich, and the rich would have you believe that it’s you the poor person who is in their debt for their providing you with all of society’s benefits. But it’s still one group exploiting another group.

And that’s what makes it theft.

Who says the poor serve the rich in regards public services? The rich are mostly paying for private schooling for their children and private healthcare for themselves as well as other private insurances. They generally will not require government support in the event of temporary loss of income, old age, illness, disability or natural disaster. And yet they contribute plenty by way of tax towards social security.

 

[FrancisFan43]

And dont forget, that the rich serve the poor by providing the poor with the goods and services that they need. Ironically, if it weren’t for vast welfare payed by the tax payer for the poor taxes would be lower.

 

[PetraG]

Who says the poor serve the rich in regards public services? The rich are mostly paying for private schooling for their children and private healthcare for themselves as well as other private insurances. They generally will not require government support in the event of temporary loss of income, old age, illness, disability or natural disaster. And yet they contribute plenty by way of tax towards social security.

Let’s clarify: The authority to levy taxes and the fiduciary responsibilty to use public funds justly are actually two separate things. If the government got money falling from the sky somehow and the public does not have to pay any taxes, the fiduciary responsibility to use public funds justly would still be exactly the same. If the government makes poor decisions with regards to using public funds, that does not excuse taxpayers from their obligation to pay taxes. Those are two separate things.

That is not to say there couldn’t be such a thing such as an intrinsic abuse of the authority to levy taxes or a tax system that a responsible person wouldn’t have to refuse to pay. It is only saying that the authority to levy taxes isn’t tied directly to the quality of government stewardship over public funds.

In other words, taxes are not inherently a form of theft but abuse of the authority to levy taxes could theoretically be a means of committing theft. (Even that does not automatically mean a taxpayer in an abusive taxation system would be entirely relieved of the duty to pay taxes or governmental fees.)

 

[itsjustme]

The rich are mostly paying for private schooling for their children and private healthcare for themselves as well as other private insurances. They generally will not require government support in the event of temporary loss of income, old age, illness, disability or natural disaster. And yet they contribute plenty by way of tax towards social security.

You’re missing the point. As with the slave owner and the slave, the slave owner benefits from providing the slave with food, shelter, and clothing. So even if all of our tax dollars went to help the poor, it still benefits those who profit off of them, just as the slave owner profits off of the slave.

So we have to ask ourselves who benefits more in the relationship between the slave owner and the slave? Who benefits more in the relationship between the rich and the poor?

Is it right for the slave to complain that the fruits of his labor are being unjustly taken from him without his consent, even though the slave is being compensated to some degree?

Isn’t it also right for the taxpayer to complain that the fruits of his labor are also being unjustly taken from him without his consent, even though he too is being compensated to some degree?

It’s not the fact that there may be some compensation involved that matters, it’s the fact that something is being taken from both the slave and the taxpayer without their consent.

 

[farronwolf]

Wrong.

When our gov. runs a trillion dollars of debt each year, they are borrowing from future generations to pay for everything like welfare, defense, grants, subsidies, and everything else in the budget.

Lower taxes, means more gov. debt, and then the need for less gov. services higher taxes in the future to pay off the debt.

 

[PetraG]

Isn’t it also right for the taxpayer to complain that his fruits are also being unjustly taken from him without his consent, even though he too is being compensated to some degree?

According to the Church, we have to remember that “for the sake of the common good, [the 7th Commandment] requires respect for the universal destination of goods and respect for the right to private property.” (CCC 2401)

In other words, just as your life is not 100% about you, the fruits of your labor are not 100% about you, either. Both your freedom to act and your right to own private property have limits and imply civic duties. Everything you have is both subject to your right to own private property AND subject to respect for the universal destination of goods. Just as you don’t have a right to act only in your own interest, but have duties to act in accordance with the right demands of government because of your citizenship, just so you don’t have a right to keep all the goods you can aquire, but also have a duty to disperse some of what you own in accordance with the just and necessary demands of government because of your citizenship.

 

[FrancisFan43]

Double wrong. If the government wasn’t turned into a welfare state the taxes would be lower. The government went hundreds of years just fine without implementing income taxes on people. Than when the government decided to expand and grow out of control than higher taxes are needed.

Less government equals less taxes. It’s pretty simple. Unfortunately we dont have a small government. We have a gigantic all expansive welfare state.

 

[itsjustme]

According to the Church, we have to remember that “for the sake of the common good, [the 7th Commandment] requires respect for the universal destination of goods and respect for the right to private property.” (CCC 2401)

Now this bit I can agree with. So the question that I would ask is…can we provide for the common good without resorting to coercion? Because to me, using coercion is just one step removed from using force.

Is there a better way?

 

[farronwolf]

Really, the first income tax was put in place in 1861, less than 100 years after the US was a country, and the 16 amendment was ratified in 1913 after the SCOTUS ruled that income taxes weren’t be apportioned by state like the Constitution called for.

Social programs started after the income tax was enacted. Might check your history.

Social security is self funded, not by income taxes.

9% of the federal budget goes for safety net programs, consisting of earned income credit, child tax credits, snap, school lunches, food stamps ect. 36 million people benefit from these programs and keep them out of poverty. That is more than 10% of the population on 9% of the budget.

 

[Socrates92]

It’s part of the social contract. No man can survive without cooperating with others. Do you like roads, schools, and peace? Then pay up.

Sometimes I don’t like 2 of those 3 things…

 

[Socrates92]

I’m Canadian. Sorry.
Sounds like the kind of concern that overthrew the reach of George III. Don’t have confidence in your elected representatives?

What do you think of eminent domain?

 

[Socrates92]

If a person wishes not to pay tax then perhaps they can be accommodated. They won’t be allowed to use the roads, public transport, no phone line, no internet, no rubbish collection, no police, no fire brigade, no ambulance, no school, no electricity or gas. In fact if that person receives the benefit of any government service and/or infrastructure then he/she will be deemed to be stealing and will get charged for theft.

In other words, we should just privatize these things?

 

[PetraG]

My kids faced natural consequences when they failed in their obligations. I don’t think my husband and I parented by “coercion.”

Death and taxes…some things are not optional.

 

[Crocus]

What do you think of eminent domain?

Valuable principle that can prevent awkward situations. (Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Socrates92]

Haha, that’s awesome! I betcha people are fist pumping those three families. Look at that work of art!
On a more serious note though, clearly the alternative cost savings weren’t that great, otherwise I’m guessing they could have been bought out.

 

[Trishie]

If no just and reasonable taxation then we all suffer…no infrastructure , etc etc
Fair taxation benefits the community with the facilities it requires.
There are circumstances where taxation can be theft, but only in corrupt excess and misuse, but also when squandered in frivolous use where legitimate need is neglected.

 

[nfinke]

Our Lord disagreed… “give to Caesar what is Caesar’s”. Who mints money?

I have never met a theologian who interpreted that passage to mean “you are obligated to give Ceasar literally all the money you own”. That is a pretty big leap.

The whole point of that passage was that Christ responded to a trick question with a trick answer. He said you should give to ceasar that which is ceasars, but never defined how much rightfully belonged to ceasar. He definitely wasnt implying that ceasar rightfully owned every piece of money in existence that had his face on it. Otherwise you have to assume He was saying someone with a herd of goats but no money didnt owe ceasar any taxes.

 

[whatistrue]

Like how does the government derive its legitimacy to do this

A government derives its legitimacy from the consent of the governed. If you use any part of the services provided through tax revenue (police, fire, roads, postal service, courts, etc.) then you are consenting to that government. Or you could leave and find another that suits you. Or stop using anything funded or developed in any part by tax revenue.