Tax Madness
April 16, 2005 Posted by Amy Hall
Could someone please explain to me how people who own businesses in
I fear that pushing care for the poor and needy into the hands of the government fosters this kind of disconnect. In
It's easy to take money from others (through taxes) to help people, but much harder–and more character building–to take on the responsibility of caring for them yourself. Conservatives who care about the poor are consistent–they do not vote for the government to take on this task, but instead, they personally give their own money to charity. Liberals, though they care about the poor, generally vote to help people through the government–which unfortunately translates to giving away other people's money. Since the government takes care of this for them, they tend to not give as much to charity on their own. (Take a look at this 2004 generosity index from the Catalogue For Philanthropy which ranks the generosity of the people of each state by comparing what they have to what they give; then compare the list to this “red state,” “blue state” election map from the same year, and you'll see an unmistakable correlation.)
I suppose the question then becomes, is it better for us to take on the responsibility of caring for the poor ourselves, or to have the government collect the money to give away for us? I argue strongly for the former–especially in light of our discussion on the need for everyone in an organization (in this case, a country) to have a personal sense of responsibility for the well-being of the whole.
Related posts:
- ETS 1: Wayne Grudem on Poverty and Wealth
- It's That Time Again
- Should God Live In His Car?
- Shocking News!
- Update on the Dateline NBC Special
- Obama On Abortion At Saddleback
Posted in Amy's Posts, Culture, Main Page, Politics
content rss
April 17th, 2005 at 12:49 am
I share your frustration with the recent measure passed in California that taxed people earning over a million dollars. While I support a graduated tax system, that measure (now law) seemed like classism at its worst. (Actually, I guess it would be considered reverse-classism.) I also think it is interesting that oftentimes the richer a person, the less they give (in terms of percentage). This is also true of nations. For example, the US, which has the highest GDP in the world, is one of the most generous nations with foreign aid in terms of dollar ammount. But when we take into account the percentage of our GDP that we are giving away, we drop down to the 20th spot in the world. (See this site for statistics.)
Anyway, I think the issue is much deeper than whether govenment or generous individuals should care for the poor. I think it should be both and I think that those who earn more – who financially benefit from the system more – should also have a greater responsibility to helping the rest of society. One should look at tax codes in general to determine whether they are just. For example, Alabama, the fifth most-generous state of the union has one of the worst tax codes in the nation. The state's income tax threshold is $4,600. (See this article.) Granted this is only one state, so we should not make the mistake and assume this is always the case. But can we say Alabama is truly generous to the poor if they maintain a tax system that continues to hurt the poor? And we must also ask what is the effect of these giving states' generosity? What is the effect it is having on the poor?
I also wonder where the money goes to. One can give to charity, but that money may never reach the poor. For example, I am sure that money given to churches was included in this study's measure (as it should be). However, there certainly is no guarantee that the churches then use the money to help the poor. Much of the money could go to salaries, building maintenance, etc., all of which are necessary. I agree that we all need to take more responsibility for the poor. I have no extreme faith in government, but I believe that it is in a somewhat unique position to facilitate that goal.
As I said above, it is far deeper than government charity or individual charity. I think that businesses should receive certain breaks so that employment can increase. Small businesses – our nation's largest employers – should receive the majority of those breaks. I'm more interested in development than charity anyway, though I believe there is room for charity.
Sorry this was so long and rambling.
April 19th, 2005 at 6:05 am
“While I support a graduated tax system, that measure (now law) seemed like classism at its worst.”
Can you biblically support holding to a graduated tax system? Doesn't the rule of law teach that both the rich and poor are to be treated equally?
“Anyway, I think the issue is much deeper than whether govenment or generous individuals should care for the poor. I think it should be both and I think that those who earn more – who financially benefit from the system more – should also have a greater responsibility to helping the rest of society.”
To advocate that the government has the responsibility to care for the poor is to advocate socialism. Where in Scripture can you support this view? I agree that individuals who earn more have a greater responsibility to help the poor and to better society, but not under the coercion of the government. The failure of individuals to give charitably is judge by God Himself, not through the arm of government.
“I have no extreme faith in government, but I believe that it is in a somewhat unique position to facilitate that goal.”
But just because it is in that position does not make it right.
“As I said above, it is far deeper than government charity or individual charity.”
There is no such thing as “government charity”. Taxes are collected under coercion, not generosity.
“I think that businesses should receive certain breaks so that employment can increase.”
I have a real difficult time understanding why businesses should be taxed at all? Taxation like this comes “ex nihilo”. Does the government think it's God?
April 19th, 2005 at 4:11 pm
Tyler, thanks for this detailed comment. I appreciate the discussion! That's a great comment about being more interested in development than charity. That's definitely the best way to go. Don't you think, though, that fostering the idea among the poor that they have a “right” to other people's money undermines this whole enterprise?
You said, “I also think it is interesting that oftentimes the richer a person, the less they give (in terms of percentage).”
It may seem that way, but from what I've read, the percentage given is more tied to how conservative they are both politically and theologically, which I think may very well follow from their views on whether they have a personal responsibility to give, or a responsibility to make others give.
One question about the nation's giving–are you referring to the money that the government gives, or the money that the government plus all the citizens give to foreign aid? We might fare better if you consider private donations.
I think if we were strictly going by what is just (that is, everyone treated equally), then everyone would pay the same percentage of tax. A graduated tax system is merciful, but not just. To say it's “just” is to say that poor people have a right to rich people's money. This is more of a Marxist idea, and I don't think it's true.
You also said, “I think that those who earn more – who financially benefit from the system more – should also have a greater responsibility to helping the rest of society.” I think people who earn more *do* have a greater responsibility to society, but again, I think they should have the right to take on this responsibility as they choose rather than having others choose for them. Then it becomes our job as Christians to encourage giving in others, and to give ourselves. This is more character building for all involved, I think.
There are other ideas out there about how to fix the tax system, but I'm not well versed in these. What do you think about a sales tax instead of an income tax? This would be much less of a burden on the poor and encourage saving.
Here is something that would be very worth discussing–I'm not convinced that the role of the government ought to include taking care of the poor. God has given us certain institutions for certain purposes. From the Bible, we find that he created government for the purpose of maintaining order–for punishing bad behavior, and rewarding the good. I'd have to look carefully through the Torah on this. I know there are certain laws that make things easier for the poor (e.g., leaving the edges of your harvest for the poor to gather what they need.) It would be interesting to look at all the laws that pertain to helping the poor to see how we could translate them to today.
But the Bible also promotes *willing* giving. Money is taken by law to support the temple, priests, and government, but I don't believe it is taken by law to give to the people. I'd be interesting in looking closely to see if this is the case. In the New Testament, the people give as they are willing–they don't take (by force) property from some to benefit others. It's never best for people to use an institution for a purpose for which it was not intended (for example, when the church ran the government, all sorts of problems resulted.) We'd be better off taking the responsibility onto the church, the people, and private organizations, while the government strongly encourages donations through tax breaks or other benefits. Then the government would be rewarding good behavior, fulfilling its purpose, while we would be supporting our community and giving willingly, fulfilling our purpose.
I think many liberals are upset at the idea that the government should provide less and the people more because they're afraid that if we don't make people give, then they won't give. Maybe they think this because that is what has happened among liberals who prefer to have the government give, but it doesn't have to be this way (as we see from the conservatives who do give.) All we need to do is return to a personal sense of responsibility to our communities. And again, I think everyone will be better off if we move towards this attitude and away from the problems that result from the government taking from some to give to others.
April 19th, 2005 at 4:15 pm
Well, we do need to pay *some* taxes. The government must have money to protect us and to maintain order. I think both of these things are biblical, so the government must get money for these purposes at the very least.
April 19th, 2005 at 5:23 pm
Hi all,
I am sitting here stunned at this conversation and where it is headed. Do you really believe the government has no place in caring for the needs of the poor? And how does that idea square with the notion that government is designed to “reward the good?” Isn't that a bit harsh, even for a theocracy?
Please elaborate, as I see no basis for this in common morality.
Cheers,
Han
April 19th, 2005 at 5:28 pm
An excellent commentary, Face! I'll just reply to your reply to me:
“Well, we do need to pay *some* taxes. The government must have money to protect us and to maintain order. I think both of these things are biblical, so the government must get money for these purposes at the very least.”
I don't argue against taxation for the purpose of supporting the government in the role it is to play. My argument is against taxation that seems to come out of thin air. At least from what I see and understand from Scripture, there is a model of taxation that the government can follow: the tithe. The tithe is God's tax on His people so that the church government will “have money to protect us and to maintain order”, though in a much different sense than civil government. But this tax is upon the individual's income, not on the activities of those individuals (bear with me, though, since I am still going through the OT to be sure that I can make this a full-fledged blanket statement). For the civil government to tax individuals, then tax them for their activities, whether it be buying, selling or any other business activity, is to unjustly coerce more from the already-paying citizen.
April 19th, 2005 at 5:39 pm
Actually, the burden of proof that “caring for the needs of the poor” is a role of the civil government falls on you. Can you show from Scripture that your point of view is the correct one? Or do you believe that “thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote”? As “stunned at this conversation” as you are, by what standard are you measuring the content of the conversation? Personal feelings or Scripture?
Since you “see no basis for this in common morality”, I'd like to know your standard of morality.
April 19th, 2005 at 5:56 pm
Hi,
I'm simply saying that governement should not neglect the poor, and that if it is running about rewarding the “good” while not caring one wit for the poor then it is entirely hypocritical.
Would you disagree with this?
Furthermore, the burden of proof is not on me, as you say, because I am not the one who asserted that government should not help the poor — Face did. And I find it amazing that a Christian, such as I assume the majority of the people are on this board, would say that government should reward the so-called “good” while neglecting those suffering in poverty. If that were what a Christian government looked like, I would not see fit to reward it in any way whatsoever.
Cheers,
Han
April 19th, 2005 at 6:03 pm
Hello Victor,
One other thought springs to mind. I would think it would be you Christians who would need to provide proof that the Bible instructs governments to neglect the impoverished. It certianly is not my way of thinking that seeks to use the Bible to that end.
Cheers,
Han
April 19th, 2005 at 7:01 pm
Hi Han,
“I'm simply saying that government should not neglect the poor, and that if it is running about reward the “good” while not caring one wit for the poor then it is entirely hyprocritical.”
You still have not provided any standard by which you can judge. You say it is hypocritical, but since Scripture is the Christian's highest standard, for the Christian, it is not hypocritical. Scripture's structure of civil government as an entity of God's justice does not lay out guidelines in caring for the needs of the poor. To go beyond what is laid out in Scripture is to neglect the wisdom God has given, which is far more destructive than the hypocrisy you seem to think there is. Going beyond Scripture is to usurp God's authority and replace it with our own.
“Would you disagree with this?”
Yes, I disagree.
“Furthermore, the burden of proof is not on me, as you say, because I am not the one who asserted that government should not help the poor — Face did.”
You are proposing a positive argument, while Face is argues in the negative. Face and I argue that it is simply not there in Scripture for the civil government to take the role you say it should. The absence IS our proof. Since you are advocating the positive argument, can you show proof of your position?
“And I find it amazing that a Christian, such as I assume the majority of the people are on this board, would say that government should reward the so-called “good” while neglecting those suffering in poverty.”
Again, you have given no standard by which you measure your “amazement”. You say hypocrisy, but if Christians are following what God has laid out the duties of civil government, then Christians are far from hypocrisy.
“If that were what a Christian government looked like, I would not see fit to reward it in any way whatsoever.”
Well, you already have your wish. The civil government you have now is in active pursuit of demolishing any vestiges of a Christian government. And yet, as it appears, poverty continues to rear its ugly head, even though the civil government has increased its fleecing of the people. Not only that, the civil government has gone beyond the Law of God, passing laws that should never be passed at all. This is tyranny.
Now, I don't know if you are a Christian or not. I haven't read enough of your commentary on these boards to determine that. But know that for the Christian, it is Scripture, not feelings or “common morality” that is to be the guiding principle on how we live and how we are to govern and be governed. So far, your commentary on this subject has only focused upon the civil government. But that only covers one area of rule and authority. If you are looking for an entity that is to be “caring for the needs of the poor” in the Christian perspective, then it is the church that you need to direct your concerns, not the civil. It is where Scripture directs the Christian to help the poor.
Unfortunately, with civil government being utilized to pit it against the church, how are Christians supposed to do the good it is supposed to do? How is the church supposed to do its duty if Christians cannot even tithe a tenth of their income because they are being unjustly taxed by the civil government? And when the civil government decides to take over a duty that does not belong to them, do you think God smiles upon this? So far, the civil government has done a bang-up job since Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty and its continuing Keynesian/Marxist economics.
The pragmatic approach is what you are advocating. The biblical approach is what Face and I are advocating. You believe it is hypocritical and perhaps you may think the result of a Christian civil government would prove itself to be such. But since it is the wisdom of God who directs both the civil and church government, following after His precepts would yield far better results than what you believe to be right.
In Christ,
Victor
P.S. By the way, rewarding the good includes the poor who do good. So in a sense, it still cares for the poor, but not based on social class. And punishing evil also includes the poor who do evil. Again, not based on social class.
April 19th, 2005 at 7:19 pm
The Bible gives no instruction to the civil government to neglect the impoverished, but neither does it give instruction to care for them either. That directive is laid upon the church. As I have lalready said in my last reply, to do other than what God has laid out is to usurp the authority of Scripture and replace it with our own wisdom. And as I have said in another post: the ultimate pragmatism for the Christian is relying on the firm foundation of God's Word and the power of the Gospel. Think about this: You are opposing the fact that Face and I are being consistent with Scripture.
Since you say, “you Christians”, can I safely assume that you are not? Well then, I understand better why you have difficulty with what Face and I are saying.
In Christ,
Victor
April 19th, 2005 at 7:37 pm
Wow. This thread was silent for days and then bam! it flared up rather quickly. Thanks for all the good points. Since answering all the questions initially posted would take us in a direction that this conversation is not going, I'll just respond to where the current conversation is, namely focusing on whether the government can collect taxes to help the poor. Victor and Face, forgive me for not answering all of your earlier questions. If you feel your questions and assertions really need answering, let me know and I'll be happy to post a response.
Here is some of the direction from where I am coming: like Face, I'm trying to draw off a lot of the Torah, but I do not want to neglect the whole Bible. I am unabashedly Christian, though I do not claim my exegesis to be entirely correct. (A professor of mine jokes that 90% of what he says is correct, which means 10% is wrong. He just doesn't know which 10%. I won't claim 90% accuracy.)
The first difficulty we run into when we try to draw a biblical ethic for taxation in the US is that our form of government is entirely foreign to the Bible, both OT and NT. We do not live in an agrarian economy, nor are we slaves in exile, nor are we ruled by a foreign power. Our republican-democracy capitalist society isn't even a twinkle in the eye of the Bible. There are even greater difficulties, which I will address below.
Victor, your statement, “The tithe is God's tax on His people so that the church government will 'have money to protect us and to maintain order', though in a much different sense than civil government,” is problemmatic in our discussion. It is in fact somewhat anachronistic, for you seem to claim that there is a separation of church and state (or in the case of the OT, Temple and state). But there was no bifurcation of this type in ancient Israel. Even the current separation of powers into three branches of government did not exist. The collection for the Temple was a collection for the state, the judgments of the Temple were judgments of the state, etc. When God threatened and enacted punishment in the Prophets, he made no distinction between the civil government and the religious institution for they were the same branch on the same tree even though there were different roles of authority (e.g., kings and priests).
As for taxing other activities, I doubt that you will find scriptural support for these cases. However, we will have difficulty finding direct scriptural support for a lot of our laws such as the protection of a free press under the First Ammendment. (Don't get me wrong, I love a free press.) We cannot assume that the governments described in the Bible are specifically what God had in mind for the people of God. Even in the OT, there are at least 3-4 different governmental models that Israel follows or is under. There are certain values that I believe God wants for his people regardless of their system of government.
Now that I made the whole mess more confusing, let me proceed. I don't think we're going to find in the Bible a clear and straightforward rule of how to levy taxes. I do think that there are some examples of where the leadership of the nation takes the earnings of others and gives them to the poor. Face mentioned one in which landowners are to leave crops in the fields from which the poor can glean food (Lev 19.9-10). Face said that the emphasis is encouragement willful generosity. That is certainly the heart that the Torah wants for the people. We cannot get past the evidence, however, that there was a command given by God to landowners to leave produce (probable profit) in the fields for the poor. This command did not take into account whether the landowners were willing or not. The instruction was just do it.
Face makes this other point: “Money is taken by law to support the temple, priests, and government, but I don't believe it is taken by law to give to the people.” There is the example in Deut 14.28-30 in which every third year the whole tithe is to be given to the Levites, the poor, the widows, the aliens, etc. Let us also not forget the rule in Lev 25 concerning the Jubilee year in which all land is to go back to the original owners. That sounds like a radical redistribution of wealth and goods to me, imposed by the law. (Sadly, there is no record of anyone ever following the Jubilee rules.)
Whew…that's a lot. Thanks everyone for the discussion. I look forward to the responses. Blessings.
April 19th, 2005 at 7:49 pm
I would say that the government must protect the rights of the poor and not allow them to be oppressed.
I'm not saying the government should definitely not give any money to the poor. I'm only saying, I'm not convinced this is a task the government is meant to take on. I think this is worth exploring. You must not assume, however, that this means I don't think money should be given to the poor at all! I just think the responsibility lies elsewhere.
April 19th, 2005 at 8:01 pm
Han, I also want to point out that, as I said, the government ought to make laws that make it easier for those in poverty to move up and out of their situation (see the law from the Torah I mentioned that requires farmers to leave the edges of their fields for the poor to harvest.) This is definitely “caring for the poor,” being just, and encouraging their advancement, but this is different from just giving money. In other words, the government ought to create a structure that is fair and encourages growth for everyone (not taking money from some and giving to others). Then, you and I are to give willingly of ourselves and our money to those who are in need. I'm not sure why you see this as not compassionate. The caring for the poor takes place in every way–I just think we should shift those responsible from others to ourselves.
April 19th, 2005 at 8:38 pm
Tyler, first, you can see the comments I added here and there above.
You said, “There is the example in Deut 14.28-30 in which every third year the whole tithe is to be given to the Levites, the poor, the widows, the aliens, etc.”
Thanks! That's exactly the kind of thing I was looking for. Like I said, I'm interested in discussing the principles behind the laws of the Torah, since I know they reflect God's will for society. It's the principles behind the laws that I am looking for, since the laws themselves often no longer apply to our culture. So there was a special collection that was distributed to the poor. You're right that at the beginning, there was no government separate from the temple. Do you think that now it is separated there should maybe be a separation of duties as well? Possibly.
The Levites were always supported by the people (as the “government” operating the temple), and I think widows and orphans had special needs in that society (unable to work). The principle should possibly be to support those who have no way to support themselves and those who are serving us full-time.
I think our government has gone way beyond this, however, and I think this has a corrupting influence on our society, as I explained in my original post. Consider the law about the fields–that still involves work by the people who need it. This is wonderful because it preserves the dignity of the needy and doesn't promote a feeling of entitlement–that they have a right to somebody else's money. This law opens up their ability to provide for themselves. I definitely think the government ought to pursue this line of thinking. (This is very in line with your development comment.)
You said, “Let us also not forget the rule in Lev 25 concerning the Jubilee year in which all land is to go back to the original owners. That sounds like a radical redistribution of wealth and goods to me, imposed by the law.”
I think the purpose of this was to maintain the twelve tribes, and that may be the only principle (which definitely doesn't apply today). But it's interesting you bring this up because I've been mulling over a similar law for the last few months–the one where all debts were cancelled every seven years. This seems to prevent huge debt and hopeless poverty–even though, on the face of it, to me this doesn't seem very fair. I've been thinking and thinking about this, trying to understand fully it's purpose and principle and how we ought to reflect this in our society today.
I sincerely hope nobody thinks I'm advocating callousness towards the poor. I only want to find the best and longest-lasting way to help them and create a society of people who are fair, good, and merciful. Countries in Europe, as they lean more and more towards socialism are falling apart morally and economically as they depend more and more on the government and become less and less productive and giving.
April 19th, 2005 at 8:46 pm
I just want to add one more thing in an effort to prevent any misunderstandings. Even if God didn't command the government to give to the poor, He most certainly did command *us!* We're only debating which is the best way to help the poor, not whether or not it should be done at all.
April 19th, 2005 at 8:55 pm
Hi Face,
“I'm not saying the government should definitely not give any money to the poor. I'm only saying, I'm not convinced this is a task the government is meant ot take on.”
If you are convinced that this isn't a government task, then how you do justify any government-giving to the poor? I would think that if you are convinced it isn't the government's task, it is because of a biblical principle. If that is true, how can a case be made for the civil government to give money? To do so would be to go beyond Scripture.
I'll elaborate more in response to the posts made by you and Tyler.
In Christ,
Victor
April 19th, 2005 at 10:07 pm
I'm saying I'm not convinced this is to be a main task of the government (as it is rapidly becoming). That doesn't mean there aren't some cases where government support is appropriate. I would have to do much more studying to determine my exact position in every instance.
April 20th, 2005 at 11:27 am
Han, I thought of a way to describe what I'm saying that may be less emotionally charged, and so, more clear.
If I were to say to you, “I don't think it should be the main purpose of the fire department to take care of the poor,” would that be so shocking? I think you would agree with me and not accuse them of neglecting the impoverished. This is because you understand that the main purpose of the fire department is to fight fires. It's not uncaring to the poor to say that they should focus on this.
But what if the fire department decided it was now going to focus on taking care of the poor, and the endeavor took more and more of their resources such that they were no longer able to fight fires effectively? This would put a great strain on the community–both in the resources the fire department would demand and in their lack of effective fire fighting.
All I'm saying is, the focus of caring for the poor belongs to other institutions (like the church) and to individuals. These other institutions are far better suited to care for the poor effectively. Like with the fire department, the main purpose of the government is not to take care of the poor. This doesn't mean they hate the poor any more than the fire department hates the poor–this just means it's not their function.
This seems unfeeling to you because you're assuming that it *is* the main function of the government to take care of people, but this is a fairly recent concept. When you look at the societies that have embraced this new concept, you see that they are heading for disaster–all the people work less and demand more, and in the extreme case of communism, the results are much, much worse. On the other hand, when you look at countries that are moving away from this concept (like Ireland), decreasing heavy taxes, you see countries where the citizens are beginning to thrive more and more, and therefore, are able to take care of their own communities.
Does this make more sense?
April 20th, 2005 at 12:45 pm
No worries. Nothing you have said would lead me to believe that you are callous to the poor. That we both value and want to help the poor is why we're having this discussion in the first place.
I would be careful in the distinctions you draw about the Levites and the widows. Do not forget that the Deut 14 passage also includes the resident aliens. Taking care of those less fortunate does not seem to be dependent upon their roles, abilities, or willingness to work. Taking care of the poor seems more dependent upon those who have no inheritance.
Entitlement is a dangerous issue that I believe the Torah seeks to deal with directly. The instructions regarding gleaning is a way of upholding the value of work, thus making sure the less fortunate do not feel entitled to the goods of others. The Jubilee and Sabbatical regulations (e.g., cancelling the debts, returning property) is a means of making sure the more fortunate do not feel entitled to their current possessions. Regardless of how they received the property, they are to return it to the family of origin.
I do not think this is just a means of preserving the 12 tribes, though that is a likely result. I believe that this redistribution is more a theological statement. That is, these regulations uphold the belief that it is God's land in the first and last places, and it is God who gave the people the land. For them to hoard the land or other property is an affront to God's gracious covenantal nature. Such actions would also make the statement, “I earned this without God. It's mine to keep.” God's message throughout the Torah (even the whole Bible) is that the world is his and we are stewards. Though I hate to bring in other texts, I cannot help but think of Jesus' parable of the laborers in the field (Mt 20.1-16) when I read the regulations of the Jubilee and Sabbatical years.
How we translate this to our current government in which the state and church are separated (a separation I greatly support) is difficult. Conversations like these are the means of that translating work.
There are abuses to the welfare system, certainly. But are these abuses the norm? What do we do with those working 2-3 jobs on minimum wage and still cannot make ends meet? How are we as Christians to respond when certain businesses earn vast amounts of dollars for their executives and shareholders but do not pay their employees wages on which they can support their families?
I am not arguing that the burden primarily lies upon one entity. I think the church and government can work together extremely well. That is part of the reason I support Faith-Based Initiatives, which if successful, could be one of the most creative endeavors our nation has embarked upon in the past fifty years. I've worked for a faith-based group (Salvation Army) and saw the amazing things they accomplish with their model, which includes reinserting a healthy work ethic.
April 20th, 2005 at 2:05 pm
Tyler, this is a great point: “Taking care of those less fortunate does not seem to be dependent upon their roles, abilities, or willingness to work. Taking care of the poor seems more dependent upon those who have no inheritance.”
This is also an excellent point: “I believe that this redistribution is more a theological statement. That is, these regulations uphold the belief that it is God's land in the first and last places, and it is God who gave the people the land.” I think this probably has much to do with it.” As a theological statement, it's appropriate in a theocracy, but as you mentioned, it may not have a purpose here. Christians should understand this, though, and take these ideas on themselves. We must understand all of our possessions as transient and belonging to God.
I don't know if abuses are the norm, but what I am arguing is that the way the whole system is set up is corrosive to our entire society, and not just those who happen to benefit from it (e.g., a too-powerful government, unfair laws like the special tax I mentioned, a lack of personal responsibility, etc.)
I agree that faith-based organizations are better at being effective than the government alone (I mean, come on, have you been to the DMV?). I hear you on the Salvation Army. I worked for a women's shelter for a time that also did a great job training women to work their way out of their situation. Prison Fellowship is another example of how the church is more effective than the government. Graduates of their program are much less likely to return to jail than the average prisoner.
This goes back to my suggestion that the government set up a system that encourages growth for all–in this case, by encouraging faith-based organizations to care for the poor. This is exactly what I'm looking for–a transfer of responsibility from the government to the people and private charities.
I really appreciate your conversation on this topic–and that goes for everyone who has been posting. We're honored to have such intelligent, thoughtful conversation on our blog!
April 20th, 2005 at 2:59 pm
I am certainly wary of establishing a theocracy of any kind – I tend to think that the church is most effective when it operates from the edges of society, but that's a whole other topic. To what extent should our faith determine our politics? I should hope to a large degree. My political beliefs say a lot about my religious beliefs and vice versa. This includes taxation policies.
I understand that the issue you raise is whether taking care of the poor is the government's responsibility at all. You are correct that we cannot transplant the OT governments to our day. However, I believe that the issue grows more complicated as we look at what the US government is. As citizens of this nation, we are the government via representation if we are not elected officials ourselves. It becomes difficult for me to entirely separate the responsibility of the government from my personal responsibility for to a certain extent, they are one and the same. So I hold that when I pay my taxes, I am taking personal responsibility. That is a strange and hazy line to be sure, but I think under my understanding of my role in government, it makes sense.
As to the size of the government, I have mixed feelings on this. The burden of the poor on our current budget is a fraction of the burden of the defense department. (I don't want to open a whole new debate here.) In your understanding, this is to be expected since the defense and protection of the citizenry is one of the primary duties of the government. That is an understandable point. The challenge, however, is that the defense costs are the fastest growing costs of our federal budgets, which increase the size of our government. My point is that I don't think having line items in our budgets to care for the poor is the only or primary reason for the government's growth.
Sorry if this reads in a slapdash manner. I'm at work right now and don't have time to give this the amount of thought free from distraction.
April 20th, 2005 at 4:59 pm
Thanks, Tyler. You said, “As citizens of this nation, we are the government via representation if we are not elected officials ourselves. It becomes difficult for me to entirely separate the responsibility of the government from my personal responsibility for to a certain extent, they are one and the same.”
Though you direct the government, you are not one and the same as the government. The government is only responsible for what the government ought to be responsible for, and you are directing it in how it should fulfill those particular duties. But you have responsibilities that go beyond governmental responsibilities in all sorts of areas, and you separate these from the government all the time. You take those responsibilities on through means separate from the government. I'm saying we would be better off to move caring for the poor (for the most part) into this category.
You are completely responsible for using your money for God's purposes, but not other people's money. When voting for higher taxes, you're taking money from others to give. When giving on your own, you're using your own money. In fact, my original post is about the dangers of the governmental method of giving to the poor. This is how you end up with Kerry (who has oodles of money) paying practically no taxes and just as little charity (this is all on record). Why should he demand higher and higher payments from others and then avoid it himself? This isn't good for the character of our society. I'm saying we need to take this on ourselves instead of inviting the dangers of demanding it of others through socialism.
You don't need to give through the government to meet your responsibility to the poor. (My whole point is to say this doesn't work as well as other means.) If you voted to collect less from all the people (including yourself), everyone would have more to give through other institutions. (The government could further encourage this through tax breaks for giving.) What I think people don't realize is that these things have consequences. Marriage and family are falling apart in the socialist Scandinavian countries where ties to the government are depended on over ties to family.
This really comes down to the purpose of the institution of government. If its purpose is to care for the poor, then it should do so; if it's not, then it shouldn't. In the New Testament (when there is a separation between church and state) the only purposes mentioned for government are found in Romans 13 and these include the purposes I mentioned. Now, obviously, that's not a whole lot to go on. However, I will say two things: First, there's *nothing* the government does more effectively than private organizations. It just seems that charity through private organizations is the way to go. Second, socialism and communism have just not proved to be successful.
April 20th, 2005 at 6:10 pm
If our government should not take taxes from others to help others why can it take taxes to fund a military to protect our nation from attack? Is that solely because it is mentioned in Romans 13? What does Genesis 41 have to say about taxes?
I am not a huge fan of big government, but I will take issue with the statement that there is nothing that the government does more effectively than private organizations. First of all, how is this quantified? Secondly, what of defense? I would tend to agree with your claim in general, but I would hesitate to make such a blanket statement.
“When voting for higher taxes, you're taking money from others to give.” This is true. But when taxes are cut, thus funding is cut, it is by and large the services that help others who cannot help themselves that are cut. In essence, those things we consider necessities (e.g., housing, basic healthcare, food) were taken away from those who were unable to hold jobs. I saw this time and again when I worked with the mentally ill. I did not see a slew of new donations coming in from private donations as taxes and funds were cut. Instead we talked about hiring and wage freezes, and concerns over how many clients we could handle. This is just one story, but sadly I do not think is isolated. Friends who worked with HIV/AIDS patients ran into the same problems.
Here's the rub I see and this is only from my personal vantage point. I've yet to see some stats on the issue. I am skeptical that someone raised in our consumeristic society will naturally give more money away if we cut back on taxes. I find that people, regardless of their conservative/liberal leanings are by and large the same. We like stuff. When we have more money, we tend to buy more stuff before we give more of it away. I saw somewhere once that for churches and private organizations to cover the costs of current government programs directed to the poor, churches across the board would have to increase their giving to such sectors by 30%. People aren't even giving 10% these days – I believe the national average is 6%. I doubt that the main reason for the lack of tithing is entirely the fault of taxes. (Forgive me for not having the source, so take this with a grain of salt.)
April 20th, 2005 at 7:03 pm
Tyler, you said, “If our government should not take taxes from others to help others why can it take taxes to fund a military to protect our nation from attack?”
The difference is that when it takes money from us for defense, the money is spent equally on everyone. We all pay the money, we all get defended. The same is true for libraries, post offices, etc. This is different from taking money from all to give benefits to some. I think it's in the interest of all society for the government to be an instrument of justice, treating everyone equally. Then, within that just society, mercy can flourish through other means.
Here is a question to think about, though, since you think government welfare is necessary: how did we exist as a nation before the welfare system? I'm guessing people gave more to charity back then (I have nothing to back that up–it's just a guess), and they were helped out by their communities. This drew people together (instead of dividing families, as socialism seems to be doing in the long run). Would people make up the difference if the government stopped providing? Probably not right at first, and things might be difficult for a bit. But in the long run, we would have to to survive, and slowly but surely our attitudes would change to taking on the responsibilities for our communities ourselves. I think this would mature our country. Granted, it may be too late to go back now–it may be that we're hopelessly dependent on government, but I don't think it's too late. We can look at other countries (like Ireland) that have been cutting back on taxes and see what happens. So far, on the whole, everyone seems better off than they were before
I could, of course, be completely wrong about this. I'm not an economist or even an expert in politics–just throwing some ideas around I've been mulling over.
This is what I think people sometimes miss–by saying that I think the government should provide less, I'm not selfishly trying to get out of paying taxes, I'm committing to the harder task of willingly taking on some of the responsibility myself. And I must say, this conversation has motivated me to be more serious about the help I give to the poor.
April 20th, 2005 at 7:49 pm
“We all pay the money, we all get defended. The same is true for libraries, post offices, etc. This is different from taking money from all to give benefits to some. I think it's in the interest of all society for the government to be an instrument of justice, treating everyone equally. Then, within that just society, mercy can flourish through other means.” This is a fair statement, but here is our disagreement. I hold that welfare is meant for the benefit of the society, not just a few poor individuals. I think it is better for all of us when people can feed and clothe their families. Before it seems like I'm advocating unconditional government handouts, let me say that I see a need for a welfare structure that is part of a development system. The goal isn't to get as many poor people on welfare as possible. The goal is to help people get on their feet and develop their communities so that they can help themselves and others. There will be cases in which people may never be able to support themselves and I think it is important that we are able to take care of them.
How did we exist as a nation before welfare? Another fair question. What era should we look at? Should we consider the economies built on slavery in the South, or perhaps the sharecropping laws during Reconstruction? The unjust working conditions in the factories of the North? 7-day work weeks? Child labor? I do not mean to be provocative, but these were some of the solutions families employed in order to keep afloat.
Under our current tax laws, you are absolutely free to cut your tax payments by giving to people and institutions. Do so with gusto and take the deduction. Truly nothing is stopping you from taking the responsibility upon yourself to determine where your money to help the poor goes.
April 20th, 2005 at 8:28 pm
“I think it is better for all of us when people can feed and clothe their families.” Agreed. It is better for all of us. I still don't think this means the government must do all–or even most–of it, because I think socialism has proven to not be better for all in the long run. There are certainly other ways for the government to increase the fairness of the society for all.
“Let me say that I see a need for a welfare structure that is part of a development system.” I can absolutely agree to this statement. I think encouraging development is a great idea. Wouldn't you agree, though, that part of encouraging development is decreasing taxes? Taking the tax burden off of people makes it much easier for those to succeed who want to succeed.
“Should we consider the economies built on slavery in the South?…” Like I said, the government must have fair and just laws to protect the people equally and ensure decent working conditions, or this isn't possible.
You're right that I can take the deduction if I wish, and I do. But I'm more concerned about the society as a whole and where it's going than I am about my own situation.
Obviously, we just disagree on the best function of the government. I'm definitely not set in stone on this, so it's been good for me to hear your perspective.
April 21st, 2005 at 5:23 am
Awesome dialogue! Although, I wish I could have written last night in order to respond to things that were said earlier, work didn
April 21st, 2005 at 11:40 am
Hi folks,
There is probably too much for me to respond to here, and I was not around at all yesterday, but it does appear as if some views have been more finely honed since I last chimed in. So that's a good thing, I think.
I will say again that I believe a proper government over a prosperous society like ours should take a hand in caring for the poor. That is the only right thing to do, and in America the government is the people, so the people can vote for this to happen in any way they see fit. And while this affluent position of ours may be a more recent development, as Face said, I think it is only right to help people under any circumstances, and I believe helping is indeed a main function of any friendly government.
As for where I got this supposedly preposterous sense, I don't know. It just seems right to me.
Cheers,
Han
April 21st, 2005 at 11:52 am
Victor, thanks for the analysis. You make some interesting points here, but I think this is the most important one–and I think we'll all agree on this (except maybe Han). You said, “Well, people don
April 21st, 2005 at 12:55 pm
And then welcome to utopia.
April 21st, 2005 at 1:01 pm
Hmmm…when I get a chance later, I'm going to address this a bit when I answer your question on my “No Thanks, I'm Busy” post about whether or not a person is truly better off as a Christian. So stay tuned!