| |
Theologically Taxing
As the recovery continues and budget deficits are slashed, there can be no doubt one of the primary issues that Governments need to imminently consider is the nature of its taxation system. Riding on a wave of populist ‘bash the banker’ public rhetoric, progressive taxation will be high on the agenda for Governments who need to balance popular policies against business concern.  But what of the Christian left’s view on this issue? We want our views to be biblically sound as well as practically adept, yet how and where does the Bible talk about taxation, in particular progressive taxation, in a way that is applicable in today’s current climate? This article will look at the theological basis for progressive taxation and how this can influence policy today. There are many passages of scripture that mentions different taxation systems but we need to ensure that we can look at these passages in a contextual manner; understanding the historical and cultural factors of why and how they were written to allow us to begin to work out where it fits in God’s flowing Biblical story. It would be all too easy to find passages on taxation in the Old Testament and use them out of context; claiming that it is the true Biblical approach to an issue despite the bigger picture having not been looked at. First we need to establish where our money comes from, to whom we pay taxes and why we give. Psalm 24:1 says ‘The earth is the Lord’s and everything in it’, this declaration that our relative wealth is merely a receiving of God’s grace should change our mindset in how we could use it to care for the vulnerable in society. Our money is provided by God and we need to remember that it’s all his and how we use it is crucial. As Pace-Hamill writes, ‘Tolerating injustice inflicted against any individual or group of individuals is tantamount to tolerating injustice inflicted against God’. When James writes that the wealthy have a duty ‘to visit orphans and widows in their afflictions’ [James 1:27], the affluent should feel a burden to provide because of the riches that they have. Throughout the Old Testament, there is a theme of God being the giver of wealth [1 Chronicles 29:12] and that with these gifts comes a responsibility to care [Proverbs 22:16]. Romans 13:1 says ‘Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God’. Therefore, it could be argued that when we give to the authorities, we are giving to God. Many will look to Old Testament as evidence that the Bible supports a flat or even regressive taxation system. Exodus 30:11-16 shows how the Israelites gave half a shekel each to be counted in the census while Leviticus 27:32 identifies that a tenth of the flock of the Israelites should be holy to the Lord. And while on the surface they look to be flat or regressive, when studied in their historical context, they show simple reasons as to why they have these appearances. In Exodus for example, a tax was needed and to charge everyone the same signified two things; that every soul is equal before God and that they needed a simple system to help with administration. To charge a proportionate tax system in the Leviticus example would have been nigh on impossible as there are so many different ways of measuring crops [weight, volume, size, count].The Bible is a flowing concept of God’s grace through which we have been made tenants of the earth and the gifts that God gives are further symbols of his grace. We have to realise that these differing gifts imply different responsibilities. One could use the analogy that a season ticket holder at a football club can only enjoy the stadium, the players and facilities if all the fees of the fans are collected together to show how society grows with collected taxes. One fan does not pay for the star player individually. Similarly, society needs collective money to build infrastructure and provide opportunity to benefit society which can only be maximised when a progressive taxation system is implemented. When we discuss the giving of our money through taxes, charity inevitably appears as an alternative. Susan Pace-Hamill, Professor in the School of Law at the University of Alabama writes ‘Belief that beneficence and charity can be a substitute for the revenues raised under a just tax structure assumes human beings have the spiritual capability to overcome the sin of greed by the strength of their voluntary efforts. This assumption cannot be theologically defended because it denies the sin of greed as being part of humanity’s fallen condition and our absolute dependence on God to help us fight greed as well as other human tendencies to sin'. And while this does not reduce charity, this shows that adequate amounts cannot be given only through involuntary efforts. But when we refer back to taxation, should there be a Christian preference for the system used? Scriptural passages show that God cares about the percentages that we give, not just the absolute amounts. Luke 21:1-4 tells the story of the woman who gave 100% of her wealth compared to the more affluent characters who gave merely ‘out of their abundance’, In other words, despite the absolute amount from the wealthy individuals being higher; it was a token effort rather than a sacrificial amount. George Lakoff, a UC Berkeley Professor in Linguistics and Cognitive Science, has written about taxation as an issue of patriotism. If we then look at the often used argument that individuals use for not paying progressive taxes, there is a claim that they have worked hard for their money and have a right to keep it. But how did they make their money? It may well have been using innovation but this was able to happen because of the domestic infrastructure, opportunity and support that society gave arising from communal use of money. Wealthy individuals therefore have a duty to give back to the society that gave them the opportunity to increase their wealth. God gives differing gifts to his children. One of these gifts may come in the form of increased wealth. We then need to take responsibility as a steward of what God gives to use this wealth in a positive way. A progressive taxation policy allows a higher percentage of your income [given by God], to be used to care for the vulnerable and for the common good. Jesus said in Luke 12:48 ‘When someone has been given much, much will be required in return’. It is now up to us to support a taxation system that leaves the wealthy taking responsibility for their actions.Pace Hamill, An evaluation of Federal Tax Policy based on Judeo-Christian Ethics, pg 674-704, Vol. 25, Number 3, 2006,Virgina Tax Review |
Sam Brown, 27/06/2011 |
|
| | | Nicholas Sagovsky (Guest) | 28/06/2011 18:04 | Delighted to see this discussion opened. In the era to which the OT bears witness there was no state as we know it to act as an agent of redistribution of wealth and opportunity but there was a real concern for justice - for the poor to have what is needed to live with dignity. The nearest thing to redistributive giving in the Scriptures is perhaps Paul's collection (koinonia) for the poor saints at Jerusalem (Rom 15:26) - which was also an opportunity for showing gratitude to God by responding generously. The bottom line is that taxes (tribute!) should (normally) be paid (Rom 13:6; Mark 12:17). We can see the paying of taxes as an opportunity for individuals to celebrate their belonging to a state (which is far better than being stateless) and for the state to practise (redistributive) justice on a scale far beyond that accessible to the individual. I find it salutary that the only people I have met keen to pay their taxes with gratitude have tended to be asylum seekers i.e. those who need the protection of a state in which they can find sanctuary and all the benefits that go with 'belonging'.
| | | | Alan Doel (Guest) | 29/06/2011 15:13 | This a timely debate, but would want another U-turn to implement. I am sure I heard David Cameron say soon after the election that put him in power:"We are all in this together and the broadest shoulders will bear the heaviest load" Then one of the first things the cabinet decided was to tke a cut in pay. This indicated that the books were to be balanced through income tax, a ready-made system, just waiting to have graduated bands applied to increase the revenue: no redundances, no additional benefit payments, no loss of services. No one could object, no civil unrest, or strikes even. BUT IT DIDN'T HAPPEN? And we all have lost.
| | | | Phil Wood (Guest) | 06/07/2011 18:34 | I'm glad to come across this blog. This is as sound a presentation of the biblical basis as I've heard in a while. You remind me why I'm a Christian socialist. I've been considering all the reasons why Christians shouldn't be Tories today. It's a remarkably short post considering it's a long list of reasons: http://radref.blogspot.com/2011/07/do-tories-make-bad-christians.html
| | | | Chris Edwards (Guest) | 19/08/2011 16:10 | Thus wrote an early colonial successionist:
Taxes are not to be laid on the people but by their consent in person or by deputation… these are the first principles of law and justice and the great barriers of a free state, and of the British constitution in part. I ask, I want no more—Now let it be shown how 'tis reconcilable with these principles or to many other fundamental maxims of the British constitution, as well as the natural and civil rights which by the laws of their country all British subjects are entitled to, as their best inheritance and birthright, that all the northern colonies, who are without legal representation in the house of Commons should be taxed by the British parliament.
SOURCE: James Otis (Massachusetts lawyer and pamphleteer), "The Rights of the British Colonies Asserted and Proved," Boston, 1764.
The Chicago school take this idea and stand it on its head. Thus a deregulated economy without tax thus means no representation and this means de minimis government and this justifies free enterprise exercising high levels of autonomy.
A legislated tax system is a fair one insofar as it offers accountability, whereas without legislated tax the private sector can and does rule instead. Melanie Klein makes this point in her book "The Shock Doctrine", and lays out how the consequences of deregulation have affected so many countries through the imposition of such an economic "theology" based on de minimis government (nb South America, and even parts of the US post Katrina). The effect has been increased cost and exclusion for those who cannot afford privatised medical and education services, and the loss of formal regulation over other key areas (eg the Argentine state pension fund is now owned by private enterprise in the US and not by the Argentine Government - imagine that in the UK).
So the idea that tax is a gift is a fallacy, it is really a due and part of a social contract that trades our personal financial autonomy for the opportunity to belong to the greater whole of the state and receive the state's protection and permission to live freely. We need to decide for ourselves where we draw the line between increased autonomy and regulation as there is a price to pay for either; in my opinion the latter is preferable to the former within sensible limits. Unfortunately when we look at the influence of the European Union on British affairs it seems we run dangerously close to the idea of taxation without representation, and that is unjust and dare I say ungodly as any lack of accountability is against basic Biblical principles of in particular leadership. The idea that our leaders can represent us within a sphere that is not directly legislated by nationally elected representatives is highly dangerous, regardless of any benefits offered by that system to the citizens of the member state.
|
|
|
|
|
