Why are taxes so high?

[GregoryPalamas]

History is fascinating. I’ve long had a suspicion that our taxes are higher than they should be. I often wondered why even under republican governments taxes were too high and pondered why they are even higher under democratic and socialistic governments. Are people so helpless that they need the government to take our money and spend it in ways they seem fit to little or no benefit to the taxpayer? I wondered if the Church couldn’t do a better job. Many of you have wondered the same thing over the years. Here’s a clue from H.W. Crocker’s, Triumph p. 240. I highly recommend the book.

Crocker on Protestantism and Monarchy p. 240

“The tinder had been laid by the rising nationalism in Europe. That nationalism set out to subordinate the Church—in the eyes of some, an Italian Church (as it had been a French Church while in Avignon)—to the state. This would lead, two hundred years later, to the Protestant doctrine of separation of church and state, and two hundred years after that to the irrelevance of church to state. There was also the resentment ofpapal taxation, corruption, and luxury. Christendom’s kings followed a low-tax-regimen. No monarchy, from the Middle Ages until the democratic age, ever taxed its subjects by more than 10 percent. Often, as in Catholic England, it taxed them not at all. High taxes are an invention of democratic, republican, and socialist governments to pay for such services as schools, hospitals, and caring for the poor that under the Catholic monarchies had been the province of the Church, and to pay for things like armies, which had been paid for by the royal families and noblemen out of their own pockets. But the absence of royal taxes meant that the Catholic Church’s demands for money to pay for its social services, or for the monasteries, or for cathedrals, or for rebuilding Rome, or for assempling Crusades, stood out as a burden imposed by a power centered in Italy—a burden that increasingly nationalist nobles and people resented.”

CDL

 

[Al_Masetti]

As a percent of GDP, taxes in the U.S.[all levels of government] are close to 40%.

Economists have generally agreed that when taxes reach the 40% level, that country starts to experience economic stagnation. [In the vernacular, it means that the country starts to go down hill.]

Ireland was having problems and cut their corporate taxes as a hopeful remedy. The results have been astonishing. The economy of Ireland is booming.

So lower tax rates produce improved economic performance.

But basically once folks learn they can get the government to get someone else to pay for their benefits, then they push the government for more “free” services.

 

[cynic]

Ireland beneifits from it’s low corporate tax because multinationals relocate their offices there. If every country followed suite there would no longer be any tax ‘havens’. It’s pointless arguing for state funded schools or healthcare here, ‘survival of the fittest’ is the order of the day in this neck of the woods.

 

[ribozyme]

It’s pointless arguing for state funded schools or healthcare here, ‘survival of the fittest’ is the order of the day in this neck of the woods.

No you are wrong… the right-wingers believe you are exempt from the survivial of the fittest rule. That is, until you are born. It is wrong to kill a “person” when they are in the womb.

 

[roanoker]

AlMasseti is dead on with this one… Roanoker

 

[Texas_Roofer]

As a percent of GDP, taxes in the U.S.[all levels of government] are close to 40%.

Economists have generally agreed that when taxes reach the 40% level, that country starts to experience economic stagnation. [In the vernacular, it means that the country starts to go down hill.]

Ireland was having problems and cut their corporate taxes as a hopeful remedy. The results have been astonishing. The economy of Ireland is booming.

So lower tax rates produce improved economic performance.

But basically once folks learn they can get the government to get someone else to pay for their benefits, then they push the government for more “free” services.

Corporate taxes are only about 20% (or less) of all taxes. BTW - in the Old Testament the hebrews gave 10% to God, and 1/3 was for widows and orphans - that is 43%. Today in the US the average person pays about 41%

AlMasseti is dead on with this one… Roanoker

 

[ribozyme]

Corporate taxes are only about 20% (or less) of all taxes. BTW - in the Old Testament the hebrews gave 10% to God, and 1/3 was for widows and orphans - that is 43%. Today in the US the average person pays about 41%

Well, if you are superrich, you only pay 19%

online.wsj.com/article/SB120468366051012473.html?mod=hpp_us_inside_today

I guess lower taxes much be a perk of being superwealthy.

 

[goofyjim]

How do one propose to help the disabled with health insurance and housing and food if the taxes are too high? Methinks we complain too much about paying taxes.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Well, if you are superrich, you only pay 19%

online.wsj.com/article/SB120468366051012473.html?mod=hpp_us_inside_today

I guess lower taxes much be a perk of being superwealthy.

Actually that 18.23% Federal Tax not “taxes” remember if the social security tax were fair they would loss another 15.3% on that line. Usually this group pays about 38% or 3% below the rate of the poor

 

[Texas_Roofer]

How do one propose to help the disabled with health insurance and housing and food if the taxes are too high? Methinks we complain too much about paying taxes.

Over taxing reduces the ability to pay taxes! Dropping the tax rate to 20-30% and reducing the spending to fit makes for a win-win except it reduces the political power to 20-50% from the current 70-90%

 

[cynic]

there are many who want to drop it to 0%

 

[goofyjim]

Over taxing reduces the ability to pay taxes! Dropping the tax rate to 20-30% and reducing the spending to fit makes for a win-win except it reduces the political power to 20-50% from the current 70-90%

I’m all for dropping the tax rate if we don’t cut services in the process. Otherwise we fail those who need it.

 

[ABostonCatholic]

I’m all for dropping the tax rate if we don’t cut services in the process. Otherwise we fail those who need it.

Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.

 

[markomalley]

Some thoughts from the Magesterium on this subject:

If working people can be encouraged to look forward to obtaining a share in the land, the consequence will be that the gulf between vast wealth and sheer poverty will be bridged over, and the respective classes will be brought nearer to one another. A further consequence will result in the great abundance of the fruits of the earth. Men always work harder and more readily when they work on that which belongs to them; nay, they learn to love the very soil that yields in response to the labor of their hands, not only food to eat, but an abundance of good things for themselves and those that are dear to them. That such a spirit of willing labor would add to the produce of the earth and to the wealth of the community is self evident. And a third advantage would spring from this: men would cling to the country in which they were born, for no one would exchange his country for a foreign land if his own afforded him the means of living a decent and happy life. **These three important benefits, however, can be reckoned on only provided that a man’s means be not drained and exhausted by excessive taxation. **The right to possess private property is derived from nature, not from man; and the State has the right to control its use in the interests of the public good alone, but by no means to absorb it altogether. The State would therefore be unjust and cruel if under the name of taxation it were to deprive the private owner of more than is fair.

Leo XIII, Rerum Novarum, 47​

That the State is not permitted to discharge its duty arbitrarily is, however, clear. The natural right itself both of owning goods privately and of passing them on by inheritance ought always to remain intact and inviolate, since this indeed is a right that the State cannot take away: “For man is older than the State,” and also “domestic living together is prior both in thought and in fact to uniting into a polity.” Wherefore the wise Pontiff declared that it is grossly unjust for a State to exhaust private wealth through the weight of imposts and taxes. “For since the right of possessing goods privately has been conferred not by man’s law, but by nature, public authority cannot abolish it, but can only control its exercise and bring it into conformity with the common weal.” Yet when the State brings private ownership into harmony with the needs of the common good, it does not commit a hostile act against private owners but rather does them a friendly service; for it thereby effectively prevents the private possession of goods, which the Author of nature in His most wise providence ordained for the support of human life, from causing intolerable evils and thus rushing to its own destruction; it does not destroy private possessions, but safeguards them; and it does not weaken private property rights, but strengthens them.

Pius XII, Quadragesimo Anno, 49​

By intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility, the Social Assistance State leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients, and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending.

John Paul II, Centesimus Annus, 48​

As to taxes, the Magesterium (and not simply the texts quoted above) give very prudent guidance as to the proper functions of the State. If taxes are excised to help accomplish those proper functions, it’s all well and good. However, if the State steps beyond what is its proper function, the taxes to finance those usurpations will provide a massive drain on society.

 

[goofyjim]

So I ask again how do the disabled get health care, housing, and food if we cut back taxes too far and discontinue services? These basic services must be maintained and with the skyrocketing prices the government will operate at a deficit if it does not tax to cover the spending. Everyone here is so concerned about cutting taxes that they don’t give a hoot about these things. Maybe if we stopped wasting it in alot of other areas such as those perk projects for the congressman’s hometown.

 

[ribozyme]

So I ask again how do the disabled get health care, housing, and food if we cut back taxes too far and discontinue services? These basic services must be maintained and with the skyrocketing prices the government will operate at a deficit if it does not tax to cover the spending. Everyone here is so concerned about cutting taxes that they don’t give a hoot about these things. Maybe if we stopped wasting it in alot of other areas such as those perk projects for the congressman’s hometown.

Well, most people here will shout charity. Problem is that most rich people aren’t as beneficent as George Soros.

 

[markomalley]

So I ask again how do the disabled get health care, housing, and food if we cut back taxes too far and discontinue services? These basic services must be maintained and with the skyrocketing prices the government will operate at a deficit if it does not tax to cover the spending. Everyone here is so concerned about cutting taxes that they don’t give a hoot about these things. Maybe if we stopped wasting it in alot of other areas such as those perk projects for the congressman’s hometown.

If documents from the Magesterium (such as those quoted above) do not provide your answer, let us consider the writings of Ben Franklin:For my own part, I am not so well satisfied of the goodness of this thing. I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. – I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer. There is no country in the world where so many provisions are established for them; so many hospitals to receive them when they are sick or lame, founded and maintained by voluntary charities; so many alms-houses for the aged of both sexes, together with a solemn general law made by the rich to subject their estates to a heavy tax for the support of the poor. Under all these obligations, are our poor modest, humble, and thankful; and do they use their best endeavours to maintain themselves, and lighten our shoulders of this burthen? – On the contrary, I affirm that there is no country in the world in which the poor are more idle, dissolute, drunken, and insolent. The day you passed that act, you took away from before their eyes the greatest of all inducements to industry, frugality, and sobriety, by giving them a dependance on somewhat else than a careful accumulation during youth and health, for support in age or sickness. In short, you offered a premium for the encouragement of idleness, and you should not now wonder that it has had its effect in the increase of poverty. Repeal that law, and you will soon see a change in their manners.
B. Franklin, On the Price of Corn, and Management of the Poor, letter to the editor, London Chronicle, November 29, 1766

Now, I don’t endorse not providing charitable assistance to the poor (as opposed to government-provided assistance), but his sentiments show us the side-effect of government assistance.

Think about it:

If I, a private person, provide groceries to a poor family, what will their reaction be? My experience has always been: “Thank you. God bless you.” That reaction, btw, is universal (I have **NEVER **not gotten that reaction) Why? Because they know I sacrificed a little bit of time and treasure to select and pay for the groceries…and to deliver them to that family.

How many times has a poor person said “Thank you. God bless you” to a taxpayer for providing a government assistance check. Why? Because they feel it’s their right to have that check (and a larger check too). (They are called “entitlements,” after all.

What happens if my taxes go down (My tax rate with FICA/Fed/State/Local works out to be about 48%, btw)?

• I would give more to charity (I give about 12.5% right now)
• I might go and replace my vehicle (enough of us doing that mean that auto workers don’t get laid off)
• I might go and get some new clothes more than I do (enough doing that mean that textile workers have work)
• I might take my family on vacation (meaning that workers in vacation spots are in demand)
• I might move into a new house (meaning that construction workers keep jobs building that house)
• I might take my family out to eat (meaning that service employees, such as restaurant workers, are more in demand)
• I might invest more than I do (providing capital to allow business to build: and thus hire more workers)
• I might save some (providing funds that are available to loan to people to buy houses, cars, etc.)
• &tc.

Get the idea? Sure, with lower taxes, my family’s life is better. I say that without shame. But that money doesn’t get buried in a clay pot in my back yard or stuffed into a mattress. That money goes into circulation somehow. And when it goes into circulation, it means employment and more money for everybody else. That’s the way it works.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

So I ask again how do the disabled get health care, housing, and food if we cut back taxes too far and discontinue services? These basic services must be maintained and with the skyrocketing prices the government will operate at a deficit if it does not tax to cover the spending. Everyone here is so concerned about cutting taxes that they don’t give a hoot about these things. Maybe if we stopped wasting it in alot of other areas such as those perk projects for the congressman’s hometown.

What percent of the population fits this description? If it is 10% or less and taxes are 20% what is the problem? I am guessing to many congressional expenses, jets rides, bribes, and health clubs.

 

[Newbie2]

So I ask again how do the disabled get health care, housing, and food if we cut back taxes too far and discontinue services? These basic services must be maintained and with the skyrocketing prices the government will operate at a deficit if it does not tax to cover the spending. Everyone here is so concerned about cutting taxes that they don’t give a hoot about these things. Maybe if we stopped wasting it in alot of other areas such as those perk projects for the congressman’s hometown.

Um…don’t paint with too broad a brush there, Jimbo.

But you’re on to something here; my guess is that our taxes could be much lower if there were not so much waste and corruption in all levels of government (which as you point out, includes Pork).

I’d be happy to pay my tax bill if I was certain that much of it wasn’t wasted and went to people who really need a hand.

But to the OP’s question, why are tax rates so high? Because we let them be so. If we had to pay taxes after the fact, i.e. if they weren’t taken out of our paychecks, there’d be a mob screaming for the heads of the Pols.

It’s also like the frog in the pot of water. Increase the tax a little here, a little there and pretty soon we’re in a socialist society.

BTW the “cut taxes and you’ll have to accept cut services” arguement is part of the problem. Government knows that we don’t want services cut, so they threaten it will be so…and we pony up, and more of just gets you-know-whatted away. If government were to run a responsible budget like businesses are forced to do, we’d have an efficient system, able to provide services at lower tax rates.

Sadly, we’re all dealing with the same thing…waste and corruption. Some things haven’t changed in 2000 years…

 

[ComputerGeek25]

If documents from the Magesterium (such as those quoted above) do not provide your answer, let us consider the writings of Ben Franklin:For my own part, I am not so well satisfied of the goodness of this thing. I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. – I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer. There is no country in the world where so many provisions are established for them; so many hospitals to receive them when they are sick or lame, founded and maintained by voluntary charities; so many alms-houses for the aged of both sexes, together with a solemn general law made by the rich to subject their estates to a heavy tax for the support of the poor. Under all these obligations, are our poor modest, humble, and thankful; and do they use their best endeavours to maintain themselves, and lighten our shoulders of this burthen? – On the contrary, I affirm that there is no country in the world in which the poor are more idle, dissolute, drunken, and insolent. The day you passed that act, you took away from before their eyes the greatest of all inducements to industry, frugality, and sobriety, by giving them a dependance on somewhat else than a careful accumulation during youth and health, for support in age or sickness. In short, you offered a premium for the encouragement of idleness, and you should not now wonder that it has had its effect in the increase of poverty. Repeal that law, and you will soon see a change in their manners.
B. Franklin, On the Price of Corn, and Management of the Poor, letter to the editor, London Chronicle, November 29, 1766

Now, I don’t endorse not providing charitable assistance to the poor (as opposed to government-provided assistance), but his sentiments show us the side-effect of government assistance.

Think about it:

If I, a private person, provide groceries to a poor family, what will their reaction be? My experience has always been: “Thank you. God bless you.” That reaction, btw, is universal (I have **NEVER **not gotten that reaction) Why? Because they know I sacrificed a little bit of time and treasure to select and pay for the groceries…and to deliver them to that family.

How many times has a poor person said “Thank you. God bless you” to a taxpayer for providing a government assistance check. Why? Because they feel it’s their right to have that check (and a larger check too). (They are called “entitlements,” after all.

What happens if my taxes go down (My tax rate with FICA/Fed/State/Local works out to be about 48%, btw)?

• I would give more to charity (I give about 12.5% right now)
• I might go and replace my vehicle (enough of us doing that mean that auto workers don’t get laid off)
• I might go and get some new clothes more than I do (enough doing that mean that textile workers have work)
• I might take my family on vacation (meaning that workers in vacation spots are in demand)
• I might move into a new house (meaning that construction workers keep jobs building that house)
• I might take my family out to eat (meaning that service employees, such as restaurant workers, are more in demand)
• I might invest more than I do (providing capital to allow business to build: and thus hire more workers)
• I might save some (providing funds that are available to loan to people to buy houses, cars, etc.)
• &tc.

Get the idea? Sure, with lower taxes, my family’s life is better. I say that without shame. But that money doesn’t get buried in a clay pot in my back yard or stuffed into a mattress. That money goes into circulation somehow. And when it goes into circulation, it means employment and more money for everybody else. That’s the way it works.

This is well said. Economics 101. If we aren’t paying as much taxes, our monies can be sent more efficiently…

Also, I think those able bodied people on welfare should be made to WORK like the rest of us. If you lower taxes, you can make up the shortfall with more people working and less on welfare.