“Some Contrarian Christian Ideas On Taxes”

I know that these are not necessarily associated with the 7th Sunday of Easter or Ascension Sunday but reflect some thoughts about some ideas related to the Bible and Christianity. This is part one of a two part piece and deals with the notion of taxes. The second part (“Some Contrarian Christian Ideas on Science”) deals with ideas of science.

At least one Presidential candidate is bring back the idea of a flat tax and using the Bible as justification for the idea. Of course, a flat tax is a very regressive tax, meaning that it impacts more on those who have less income. But there is precedence for a Biblical-based tax and I have written about it on a number of occasions.

Message presented on 31 August 2003 – “Do As I Say? Or Do As I Do?” (posted on 28 May 2008). The following messages and posts refer to this particular message as the primary source.

Message presented on 21 March 2004 – “Which Side Are You On? (2004) (posted on 27 May 2008)

Who Shall Enter The Promised Land?” (posted on 25 October 2008)

Message presented on 14 June 2009 – “The State of Faith” (posted on 27 June 2009)

To Finish The Journey” (posted on 25 October 2011)

The original reference for a Biblical tax system is found in the first of the five posts (“Do As I Say? Or Do As I Do?”) and describes the work of Susan Hamill, a professor of law at the University of Alabama, whose Master’s thesis was entitled “An Argument for Tax Reform Based on Judeo-Christian Ethics”. In it, she states it states that “Alabama’s tax structure fails to meet any reasonable definition of fairness and violates the moral principles of Judeo-Christian ethics.” (My notes say that I got this information concerning the proposal for reforming the Alabama tax code came from an article written by Bob Allen and posted to Ethics.com on 4/14/03; I cannot confirm this link, though there are several links to the original document out there).

As I originally wrote, many of the churches in Alabama came out for this proposal. However, the Christian Coalition in Alabama, backed by the state’s timber industry, worked against it, probably because it would have increased the taxes on higher incomes and businesses. The Christian Coalition could not defeat the logical of the argument she presented so they attacked her personally.

So, there is a Biblical way to tax everyone that is fair and equitable; it just not the plan being proposed by present Presidential candidates.

4 thoughts on ““Some Contrarian Christian Ideas On Taxes”

  1. Pingback: “Some Contrarian Christian Ideas On Science” | Thoughts From The Heart On The Left

  2. Flat tax? Never happen. Fair hasn’t got anything at all to do with taxation. Never has. Never will. Moneyed interests will not permit it. They have to much to loose. Same with the dependent class… just to much to loose. Both owe to much to institutionalized welfare… the moneyed subsidized the same as the dependents… by federal borrowing that will leave our children and grandchildren paupers … all because there is no willingness at the federal or state level to pay as we go for what we actually need. It’s much easier to blame someone else for borrowing the money that condemns all who follow us to beggar status. We party. Others pay.

    Regressive? Depends on whose ox is being gored. The left wants to use taxation as a weapon of social policy. Have done so repeatedly. Will continue to do so. And… right or left, both spend other people’s money to serve their own particular agenda. Nothing new in this. Like pretending WWI was fought to make the world safe… for anything except business as usual.

    • If a flat tax will never happen, then why do the Republicans keep putting it forth as an idea? What do they seek to gain, especially as you put it, the moneyed interests have too much to lose. They are the ones backing the Republicans who put forth the idea.

      Two things – I don’t believe that the plan that Susan Hamill put forth was a flat tax but it was one that the moneyed interests didn’t like because they had to pay more than they were paying.

      And I agree that we need to pay as we go for what we actually need but are we going to eliminate all the social programs and keep the military ones? Do we gain anything by having a system that favors destruction over construction?

  3. Republicans advance Flat Tax legislation to win political support from those who are fed up with paying confiscatory income taxes which are used by Democrats to fund income transfers with which to buy the votes of that 47% of the US population that is commonly refered to as the dependent class. That the Flat Tax will ruffle the feathers of moneyed interests is of no matter since they know the Flat Tax will not fly. It plays to the crowd, so to speak, but that is all. The Democrats will never allow the current fed. income tax structure to be significantly changed as it would to severely damage the base of their own political power for without federal money to dole out to special interests groups, Democrats would be unable to function.

    I have no knowledge of Mrs. Hamil as to her advancing a Flat Tax initiative. Doubtless her idea is one version of many commonly call a Flat Tax with features that are particularly hers. The concept of a Flat Tax is not uniform in expression. If it were to actually move through the legislative process, it would certainly become more defined and refined.

    There are few responsibilities that actually fall to the fed. govt. Those few responsibilities are clearly delineated in the COTUS. Overreach without legitimate support in the COTUS has resulted in the extension of federal power far beyond it’s legitimate scope. The consequence has been red ink as far as our grandchildren will ever be able to see.

    Impulsive cutting is one possible method by which to deal with the financial crisis that looms in our future. It is politically unpalatable and for that reason alone, it will not be done. A budget freeze would be excellent, but again, those groups dependent on ongoing and increasing fed. spending will never permit it. Like a substance abuser, they are addicted to spending other people’s money. That is true of all dependent classes… both those dependent upon social programs and those dependent upon DOD spending. The most workable solution would be to reduce the rate of increase in spending. This would be at least a workable start to making progress in addressing what is now a fed. budget train wreak that is hurtling faster and faster toward a catastrophic collision with a body politic that is increasingly less and less wiling to put up with an administration that only kicks the budge can down the road.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.