Taxes = Satan?

I agree with Elder Oaks that taxes do not take away agency. However, they do take away freedom. I do not believe in forcing people to contribute money to help the poor, because doing so is false charity. Also, I believe it is wrong to coerce people into helping others via taxation. Elder Oaks’ comment does not negate the fact that using force against others unjustly is wrong, even if that force doesn’t take away agency. Just because governments don’t take away agency doesn’t mean that coercive governments aren’t bad.

In addition to the fine responses made previously, I would like to point out that government social programs are based on the false premise that the unequal distribution of wealth is a moral issue. The false conclusion derived from this false assumption is that if poor people had more money the social ills of the world would be greatly reduced.

Thus some argue that the good ends justify the evil means of governmental force.

My conclusion is that God doesn’t care much about who is rich and who is poor.

God cares about a lot of different things. He cares about his people having enough to eat and having clothing, and having shelter. He cares a lot more about people developing the godly character that is necessary for exaltation.

When one man voluntarily shares his surplus with another man that is in need, the increase in good in the world does not come because the distribution of wealth is more equal. The fact that the first man now has less, and the second man has more is insignificant. The increase of good in the world comes from the fact that the wealthy man is developing charity, mercy, kindness, compassion, and brotherhood, while the poor man now also has an opportunity to develop godly traits such as gratitude and thrift.

In fact, it does not need to go in the direction from the wealthy to the poor. When a poor man voluntarily gives to the rich man, it can create just as much good if not more.

Thus it is no wonder that when we look at the actual results of these programs rather than their intention, that the results are just as evil as the means. Has the distribution of wealth become more equal since the start of all these redistribution programs? It has not, in fact the opposite has occurred.

Our country is not becoming morally decedent because of the unequal distribution of wealth. Rather wealth is becoming unequally distributed because our countrymen are failing to develop good moral character. Employers mistreat and abuse their employees. Employees slacken their labor, and cheat their employers. Salesmen lie and deceive to sell product. And worse of all, everybody acts like it’s just something to be expected. If you refuse to participate you are considered odd. Some employers actually seem to prefer ambitious employees to honest ones.

Is it any surprise that as we become less of a Zion people that we move farther away from Zion?

We can not rely on government programs to compensate for our personal moral failings. Yet people talk as if it is natural and reasonable to expect exactly that.

Even members of the church present a bizarrely skewed way of viewing the world.

I have been suffering from a chronic illness for a long time. I mentioned to a few people that I felt guilty about having become such a burden financially to my family. Their response was to urge me to qualify for Medicaid.

I find this thinking bizarre. Do they really think it is less shameful to use governmental force to steal from a stranger then it is to accept charity from your family? Better that I die young as a cripple, then become a thief.

Yet anytime I point this out to people they look at me like I’m crazy. And but two generations ago, I would have been considered making an obvious point.

Do you pay Medicaid taxes? Do you have a choice to not pay them? Do you get to choose how much? How would you feel if the Salvation Army, or the Red Cross got to set a certain percentage of your income to be devoted to the charitable cause they think worth? How about if I come around and personally collect my share from each of you? If it was anybody but the government we’d all call it theft.

Do you really trust the Federal Government more than the Red Cross? Then why do we give the government power in an area where we would never give those powers, even to the experts!

At least in the cases of war and law enforcement, the government is arguably the expert at killing and imprisoning people, so you might think it reasonable to restrict such powers to the government.

I find it impossible to believe that the government is more effective and efficient at providing charity then regular Americans. So why not let Americans keep the money and let them be in charge of providing the charity?

And even if there was some government efficiency (which I have never seen any evidence of), it could not hope to offset the loss of moral development that occurs when individuals care for each other, rather then sloughing the task off on a government program.

I have to agree that paying taxes is a privilege that those who live in a country with active police forces, fire fighters, roads, electricity, water, sewerage, natural gas and other utilities, and laws to protect us from theft in various forms are lucky to be able to pay. I do believe that there’s an optimum tax rate, and that we as citizens have a duty to keep the government from growing so large that it consumes the rest of society. The reason communism fails is because it’s an inferior system. Zion does have to be voluntary. But anyone who has lived under anarchy for any length of time knows what a tremendous blessing it is to have stable government. The BoM is full of stories about what it’s like to live in small city-states, constantly at war with one another. We’re amazingly lucky to live in the U.S. now. The stable government of the U.S. is what makes it possible for us to earn what we do, to live in what is opulent wealth compared to some random badly-governed country worldwide. The fact that we have to give some part of it back to maintain the state is not a bad thing.

I do totally agree with voting for lower taxes. The only difference between Communism and Capitalism is the tax rate. But the idea that the state has NO right to compel its citizens to pay taxes is indeed foolish and childish.

I agree; I see no difference in the effect on agency between paying tithes and paying taxes. Granted, one is more voluntary than the other, but both serve a greater good and without either, people would suffer.

When it comes to healthcare, which is based on the collective knowledge of the scientific community, largely government funded and then applied for our benefit in the form of medicine, I think freedom of the pocketbook should absolutely be applied to take care of the weakest among us and distribute our resources equitably. In this sense, medical knowledge is commonwealth. It is an asset too big to be owned by one person. In most cases, bad health is unrelated to agency. Of course there are exceptions here and there in regard to weight or smoking and high blood pressure, heart disease and diabetes. Certainly patients need to be responsible for maintaining their health. But the allocation of this resource belongs to the community of the entire nation and should be distributed to the entire nation equitably.

The biggest problem I see with freedom of the pocketbook arguments is that they all buy into the big lie that we “deserve” what we own. I am sorry, but the last time I read Mosiah, I could swear we were all beggars before God.

I have worked at the city hospital that the insured patients moved away from and saw the inevitable decay in the quality and morale and oversight. It was repulsive and frankly made me ashamed of my country I live in. We do have the agency to create tiered healthcare based on socioeconomic class. That doesn’t mean we are making a correct choice with that agency.

That’s terrible, forcing people to pay taxes to help the poor! Taxes should only be used to provide armies to invade other people’s countries, torture prisoners, and spy on those ungrateful so-called Americans who don’t support such efforts.

*Yawn* (Sorry, I fell asleep reading arguments – on both sides – I’ve heard over and over ad nauseum over the last few decades.) *grin*

Can all of us agree, at the very least, that we have a moral obligation to help those who cannot help themselves – or help children who are starving or in dire need through no fault of their own? Can we agree that there is an element of Christian discipleship that includes caring for the poor and needy? All other issues concerning level of required support aside, can we agree at least on that basic idea?

” Advocates act as if we are voting about whether or not the poor should get health care, free school lunches, etc, but that is not really the core issue. What we’re voting on is whether or not we should make *someone else* pay for a moral obligation that we ourselves hold. We feel all warm and self-satisfied after voting in favor of government programs since now we’ve done our part to ensure that poor kids can go to the doctor, and best of all it won’t cost us anything because *someone else* is going to pick up the tab! But we’re being dishonest with ourselves. There is nothing virtuous about caring for the poor with someone else’s money.”

Two thoughts- first, I think to people who don’t have food or health care, those are the core issues.

Second, How is a tax making someone else pay for my moral responsibility? Last time I checked I had just as much taxes taken out of my paycheck as everyone else.

I’m not saying that we should allow the welfare system to go on the way it does. I think the way our system is set up makes it easier to stay on welfare than to become self supporting again. Welfare ought to be set up to include some kind of job training, and then have a phase out period so people can learn skills to support themselves. We need to vote for people who will make the changes we want to see, and we need to stop complaining about making sure the least of those among us are cared for. Even viewing it from a strictly selfish view- making sure that the poor have a safe place to live, food to eat and basic health care saves all of us money in the way of crime, and health insurance rates which go up for everyone to pay for the uninsured to get care at an ER.

““Second, How is a tax making someone else pay for my moral responsibility? Last time I checked I had just as much taxes taken out of my paycheck as everyone else.”

Unless your real name is Bill Gates I doubt it.”

Unless everyone else is as rich as Bill Gates, I’d imagine my taxes are pretty close to the average citizen.

And I didn’t say that I didn’t feel a moral duty to care for the poor, I was just pointing out a different way to look at it if you don’t like the moral duty perspective.

(And you are still talking as if people who are supportive of government social services are not also themselves paying taxes to support those programs… )

In the original post, Elder Oaks was quoted as saying, “we ought to focus on the legality or the wisdom of the proposed restriction of our freedom”. As to the wisdom of it, maybe some attention should be given to how character would be affected by expanding these programs… rather than just how society would benefit TEMPORALLY from more government handouts. Marion G. Romney said this:

“The practice of coveting and receiving unearned benefits has now become so fixed in our society that even men of great wealth, and possessing the means to produce more wealth, are expecting the government to guarantee them a profit. Elections often turn on what the candidates promise to do for voters from government funds. This practice, if universally accepted and implemented in any society, will make slaves of its citizens.” In Mine Own Way, Ensign, Nov. 1976, 123

Was he right? Will this trend of relying on the government to take care of us lead toward tyranny with us becoming “slaves”? Of course there will always be exceptions, some are truly grateful for help and don’t take advantage of it, but as a whole- what is the effect on character when more and more government benefits become common entitlements? Temporal welfare and security aren’t the only things that matter when considering what to do.

I think giving people a hand up (temporary welfare- job training-) is different than a hand out, and I don’t think it would make people rely too much on the government. Rather, it would help people learn to be self-sufficient. I see wisdom in that.

I see wisdom in that too. I think that government aid collected through taxes is more likely to be seen as an entitlement (I have to pay for this so I deserve it) whereas aid from voluntary donations is less likely to be seen as an entitlement.

Taxes are the price we pay for civilzation– Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes

My friend’s cousin lives in canada- she has an illness that prevents her from working full time. The way our system is set up, if she lived in the US, she couldn’t work, because then she wouldn’t qualify for medicaid. And she is unable to work enough hours to pay for medical coverage here.

In Canada, her health issues are covered, so she is able to work part time and be a contributing member of society.

We’ve got a seriously messed up system.

I thought about jumping in but I don’t think I can add any new thought except for this:

If you take welfare from the system- the system should own you, until you choose NOT to be on welfare. Example: Birth Controll and Drug Testing.

You should sacrifice your agency when you force others to pay for your poor choices.

My perception has been that folks who are already asked to give up 10% of their income to church are much more frustrated with taxation.

I love how “socialist” is tossed around so lightly here. It’s like watching Faux News! We are far from socialist in this country and probably never will be. Even most of Europe is only partially “socialist”.

Carissa makes a good point. We are not to any one extreme, but to certain degrees this or that. For every argument you want to make that these are “socialist” programs, it is just as easy to point out “fascism” and even “ism”s in this country. Instead of trying to use scare tactics like the pundits on tv, let’s use facts to back up our claims.

I agree with those opposing taxes that provide greater benefits to some than to others. For example, taxes that pay for educating children of parents who pay no (or little) taxes. The scriptures place the obligation of educating children squarely on the parents. It is wrong for government to coerce citizens without children to pay for education of the children of others(either through public schools or through “school choice” vouchers).

Similarly, it is wrong for government to purchase books and other materials for people to read who pay no taxes. Ben Franklin was clearly a Fabian pinko socialist for establishing a public library. Providing books to read to unpaying masses of humanity is clearly outside of government’s sole purpose of providing for the common defense against criminals and foreign powers.

While we are at it, I think we should return to the predecessors of modern fire departments–privatized fire companies run by fire insurance companies that put out fires only for those who have paid the premium. The government has no business coercing people to pay taxes for fire departments when there is a preferable alternative–voluntary payment of fire insurance premiums.

And don’t get me started on Social Security, or Medicare, or Veterans Hospitals.

AdamF -

David is doing exactly that. He isn’t dismissing all government restriction, but rather evaluating a particular kind of taxation, declaring it to be “unwise” or “wrong” (I see little difference between the two). He is basing his arguments upon the merits and philosophy of particular kind of program.

Go DavidH! I agree.

I think it is a fallacy to say that because a service is either necessary or good, that the government ought to be the one to provide it. Education, I think is best handled in the private sector, when it isn’t funded by tax money. And I am especially curious about how a privatized fire department would work. Would their be competition? If so, then we may see cheaper and better ways to extinguish fires. Public libraries? I don’t know on that one. I tend to think that if Franklin did it, it must be good (founding father worship), but at the same time, what is the difference between that and a tax funded school? Simply that there are no teachers to hire, just the books. And I am no fan of public education right now. I think an open door library is perfectly fine if it is privately financed, same with school.

All in all, I think that the government’s use of tax money should be kept to the list of enumerated powers, and no more.

Am I the only one who thought DavidH was being sarchastic? Maybe so.

As to libraries, I think they are fine. All citizens have access to them, even those who don’t know how to read can learn by way of resources from a library and the cost is minimal (compared to many other things). Public schools- I think the idea behind providing an opportunity for everyone to be educated is wonderful. I’d prefer as Jeff says, though, that government services be kept to a minimum for everyone. The way the government used to finance public education was in providing the land and the money for the building and that was it. Local communities had to come up with the rest. A low tuition was charged in order to pay the teachers, utilities, and the up-keep of the building and grounds. In this way, there was more local control, stewardship, and responsibility- and less burden on members of society who would not use that particular service for whatever reason (private school, no children, etc). I think it’s a fair compromise. Whenever something is completely “free” by way of taxation, individuals will always have less control over what they get.