Why is taxation not theft and why is the state legitimate?

[Sky_River]

Jesus Christ Himself commanded that we render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s. St. Paul the Apostle confirmed the duty to obey legitimate authority. The fullness of apostolic tradition has supported the duty to pay taxes since the beginning.

There is really no one social teaching that is less negotiable than this.

If you think you’re smarter than our omniscient God and the shepherds to whose care He entrusted you, then you are by definition a reprobate soul and there’s nothing to be said to you except to offer our sincerest prayers that you repent of your error before you pride destroys you.

So perhaps the decent Catholics in this thread ought to bow out of this utterly unprofitable discussion.

Please define legitimate authority 4 four for me, please!!!

What if there’s is a revolution and the/a legitimate authority is overthrown by an upsurper???

 

[Reep]

Jesus Christ Himself commanded that we render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s.

Do you suppose that it is a settled question what is or is not Caesar’s? For my two cents, I’d says everything is the Lord’s. Perhaps Caesar is owed nothing. Perhaps even what he has was taken from others by force.

Why don’t we also quote Rom.13:6-7, where St Paul writes:

For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. Pay 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.

The rulers might read this passage as satisfying homage, but the subversive undercurrent of this verse is barely beneath the surface for we who must serve the masters. Indeed, justice might cry out that no taxes are due; that the bloody hands of the ruler merit no respect; and his thefts deserve not honor but punishment. Only a fool feels honored at having been wished “all the respect he is due.” St. Paul’s words are reminiscent of Bilbo’s speech at his birthday party:

“I don’t know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve.” ~ J.R.R. Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings

It’s hard to make out whether he is insulting or paying a compliment. So let’s not assume that St Paul was licking the Emperor’s boots, when he may just as well been showing (concealing?) his contempt. There is much more here, but it would take too much space. Anyone interested can read my article at Lew Rockwell.com. It’s an interesting proposition whether you agree or not: St Paul Tweaks the Emperor’s Nose.

 

[LilyM]

As far as I am concerned private companies competing for those contracts would only lower prices and raise the quality of service. I can see no other outcome.

I live in a country where quite a number of previously nationalised services, from electricity to water to public transport, have been privatised over the past two decades. Service has invariably plummeted as a result, and prices spiralled upwards out of all proportion to actual value provided.

Because unlike government, private business exists not to provide the best (or even adequate) service to its customers but the cheapest, in order to maximise profits for owners and shareholders. Since all companies in any given industry have these two primary goals in mind, they know that they are safe in lowering service standards and gouging prices because their competition are all busy doing the same.

 

[Reep]

I live in a country where quite a number of previously nationalised services, from electricity to water to public transport, have been privatised over the past two decades. Service has invariably plummeted as a result, and prices spiralled upwards out of all proportion to actual value provided.

Because unlike government, private business exists not to provide the best (or even adequate) service to its customers but the cheapest, in order to maximise profits for owners and shareholders. Since all companies in any given industry have these two primary goals in mind, they know that they are safe in lowering service standards and gouging prices because their competition are all busy doing the same.

Sounds like you have identified a terrific opportunity for new companies to come and corner the market by giving lower prices and better service. Have you considered this?

Of course, the reason those services were privatized was because government could no longer afford to provide them at a price well below what they actually cost. I suppose we would hear similar complaints if those who wanted to send a letter by mail suddenly had to pay what the letter actually cost (rather than having the cost subsidized by the state).

You are right that government can charge less if it wants. It has options that businessmen do not. Instead of charging you the costs, they can take the money from someone else in taxes. They can create money out of thin air. Or they can borrow more money.

Then you can pretend you were getting a bargain, when you were really just stealing from someone else; or worse, stupidly letting inflation of the currency steal it from you; or–worst of all–stealing the money from your own children by leaving them the debt you created so you could have cheap services. You (and all of us) should be ashamed.