Why Shouldn't a Government take all our Income? (Thread 1 of 2)

  • Thread starter Thread starter silentwitness
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

silentwitness

Guest
I would like to discuss the issue of how much income it is wise for a government to take from it’s citizens in order to facilitate a society that is cohesive and in order for the love of God to be maximally manifest.

(Apologies to our atheist posters. Perhaps you would like to substitute ‘a society of kindness’ in place of the God reference above).

Firstly i think it may be advantageous to get some sort on agreement that a government shouldn’t take ALL a citizens income. If we can agree on this then at least we have agreed there is an upper limit on how much income a government should take. I hope that given there is an upper limit we can then discuss the level of that upper limit more coherently.

I expect that some will disagree and their comments are also welcome.

I believe there are several reasons why a government should not take ALL a citizen’s income and i would like others to discuss, agree, disagree and add their own reasons or counter reasons.

The postulation ---- It is unwise to take ALL of someone’s income because :
  1. it is a form of slavery which exploits people for others gain.
  2. it dissuades people from producing wealth which creates a poorer society.
  3. It creates resentment in the population that leads to violent rejection of the state.
  4. It creates a political class feeding itself off other’s income.
  5. The ruling class create a repressed society in order to defend its own ruling position.
  6. A focus is taken off production and placed on being in control of distributing income.
In short taking ALL citizen’s income would create resentment, repression, insurrection and a poorer society which leads away from citizen cohesion and support and hinders the presence of the love of God.

Do people agree? Any thoughts?
 
Last edited:
I don’t agree with the premise. Government taking all the money would be equivalent to there being no money at all. A moneyless economy would be a different sort of social contract in which individuals do their work and serve one another fairly and equitably. I believe something like this is described in Acts of the Apostles. The question in my mind is whether such an economy is stable, or does it naturally tend to become unbalanced and unjust.
 
Last edited:
Beryllos said:
I don’t agree with the premise. Government taking all the money would be equivalent to there being no money at all. A moneyless economy would be a different sort of social contract in which individuals do their work and serve one another fairly and equitably. I believe something like this is described in Acts of the Apostles. The question in my mind is whether such an economy is stable, or does it naturally tend to become unbalanced and unjust.
Click to expand...
I think such a moneyless economy would gradually turn back into a barter economy which would inevitably slip back into using currency of some kind. Yeah, it’s not stable. Money is a necessary root of all evil.
 
The discussion is the government taking ALL the income of citizens.

Of course it will have to give some back. Physical ‘money’ is simply the most effective way to do this. So the government taking all of the income of its citizens is not the same as there being no money.

I think the idea of people just working for each other in some sort of utopia is clearly not the reality of history.

A political class who do not produce but who have all the power is needed to redistribute and manage the process.

This has always led to resentment, repression, insurrection and a poorer society.

So the question remains - is it acceptable that a government take ALL the income from its citizens?
 
Last edited:
Shakuhachi said:
I don’t know about the economic but i doubt it has anything to do with the love of God.
Click to expand...
Well if there is a curtailing of freedom and enforced poverty doesn’t this lead to resentment and a widespread feeling of hopelessness? Doesn’t this work against the presence of the love of God?

If there is violence against the state and the enforced repression by a section of the population needing to repress society in order to keep power doesn’t this also work against the love of God spreading throughout society?

If people are lying to themselves in order to justify their actions of supporting authoritarian positions does this not work against the acceptance of the love of God being in their hearts?
 
this is an angels dancing on pinheads issue.

Speaking as an economics professor,long before “all”, government income drops with rising tax rates.

No, it isn’t at 10%, as the WSJ seems to think, nor past 99%, as the DNC seems to think. It’s low enough that the Kennedy, Reagan, and Thatcher tax rate cuts all increased government revenue. The Clinton rate increases likely reduced revenue, but the data is to fuzzy on that.

Given that you can’t get to 50% without seeing tax revenue go down, the rest is pointless.

Talking about taking 100% means 100% of just-plain-not-much.
 
dochawk said:
Talking about taking 100% means 100% of just-plain-not-much.
Click to expand...
So 100% tax rate means a lowering of production and increased evasion due to resentment?

So would you agree that a government taking all a citizens income works against the love of God being present in a society as outlined above?
 
silentwitness said:
So 100% tax rate means a lowering of production and increased evasion due to resentment?
Click to expand...
No, it means that people react to incentives.

At 100%, people make the same by working or not, and pretty much don’t work.

Again, the threshold where total tax revenue decreases as the tax rate goes up is far lower than that. While it varies by country, in the US peak revenue seems to be at somewhere in the 30% to 40% range.

The only explanation I can provide for setting the rate higher than peak revenue is spite . . . “Yes, I’ll have the poor and middle class pay more just so that I can take it away from the rich!”
silentwitness said:
So would you agree that a government taking all a citizens income works against the love of God being present in a society as outlined above?
Click to expand...
I think the whole premise makes no sense, and I can’t “agree” with a notion that flows from that.
 
You seem to be agreeing with me that a 100% tax rate would lower production but are going the long way to get there. You say that at 100% people don’t work which must mean production goes down, yes?

For the love of God question can i ask if you believe in God?

If yes, do you think that at a rate of 100% tax such as with the USSR there was an increase, decrease or same level of love of God in the community?
 
It’s only stable for active religious communities who opt in as adults.

Not even going into the enormous issues involved in trying to coerce other adults into such a radically different (and inherently less free, more supervised) social contract… Once you introduce a new generation of children into the mix, all bets are off.
 
silentwitness said:
You seem to be agreeing with me that a 100% tax rate would lower production
Click to expand...
No. It doesn’t lower, but eliminate production.

Or are you going to use force and enslave people to get them to work for free?

Your questions are not coherent. You move from a nonsensical premise to try to get people to answer and thereby draw inherently nonsensical conclusions. (alternatively, you are trying to limit possibilities to two nonsensical possibilities, such as “Are snails or caterpillars the most intelligent of the animals.”)
 
dochawk said:
No. It doesn’t lower , but eliminate production.
Click to expand...
Well of course if you eliminate something you lower it so the answer to the question of whether one thinks it will be lowered is yes.
dochawk said:
Or are you going to use force and enslave people to get them to work for free?
Click to expand...
I am not sure we are on the same page. I am not going to do anything.

We are talking about a theoretical government who takes 100% taxation. Of course there will be government programs provided back to the citizens. I am also in agreement that this is not a good system because of the negatives already expressed.
dochawk said:
Your questions are not coherent. You move from a nonsensical premise to try to get people to answer and thereby draw inherently nonsensical conclusions. (alternatively, you are trying to limit possibilities to two nonsensical possibilities, such as “Are snails or caterpillars the most intelligent of the animals.”)
Click to expand...
I have no idea what you are saying here. It is not a nonsensical premise. If we can agree that 100% tax rate is bad for society and come up with solid reasons why it is bad then we can examine those reasons intelligently to then decide where the tax rates should morally be set.

There are many people, including many Catholics who do not think from this premise. Hence they are more likely to just keep agreeing with tax increases because they believe the state (or church) having the money will produce superior outcomes.

Looking at things the way they are presented should mitigate that incorrect view and hopefully get broader agreement.

For the last part of the question can we start with answering the question of whether you believe in God and go from there?
 
Last edited:
I don’t think this is the right question. I think the better question is what does the govt need to do in order for the govt to create a society that is “cohesive and in order”? Its like when someone ask the price of something and the person replies, “How much do you have in your wallet?”
 
I think the problem with that approach is that it does not set an upper limit on how much the government should take and it does not acknowledge that non government factors are important for society cohesion and order.
 
Last edited:
silentwitness said:
So would you agree that a government taking all a citizens income works against the love of God being present in a society as outlined above?
Click to expand...
I would say no. In any economic system, there are those who love God and neighbor, and those who don’t.

Your love question reminds me of a small remark in the Catechism (CCC 2402) to the effect that the private ownership of goods “should allow for a natural solidarity to develop between men.”

Let us now examine the historical evidence. Have capitalism, free markets, or low taxes often led to natural solidarity between men? I think not.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top