Would Jesus want government to raise your taxes?

The Union Leader, Manchester, NH ^ | 8/19/03 | Stephen Moore

[RJCogburn]

YOU MAY BE following the political hullabaloo in Alabama where the new Republican governor wants to pass the biggest tax increase in the state’ s history and says he has a highly influential advocate supporting him: God.

Gov. Bob Riley says that it is his “Christian duty” to raise taxes (by 22 percent) in order to fund vital government services to help the poor.

“Jesus says one of our missions is to take care of the least among us,” says Riley. “We’ve got to take care of the poor.”

Fine, but that begs the question of whether raising taxes is a Christian response to tough times. The Bible seems to be ambiguous on this point. Supporters of the governor’s tax hike note that Jesus did preach: “Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s and to God that which is God’s.”

It’s also true that Jesus was anything but a fan of tax collectors.

The Bible does indeed call for us all to act charitably and aid the poor — this is the essence of living a Christian life. But an act of charity is by definition an action that is voluntary. Taxes aren’t voluntary. (Try not paying them, and see what happens.)

Moreover, liberal big government do-gooders are in many ways the ultimate hypocrites: to advance social justice they demand sacrifices of others that they will not take voluntarily themselves. For example, Warren Buffet recently and sanctimoniously wrote that he opposes the Bush tax cut and that rich people like him don’t need a tax cut. But when he was asked whether he would turn over the extra millions of dollars that will be returned to him from the Bush tax cut, he was deafeningly quiet.

One wonders whether Jesus would believe that there is a limit as to how much taxes someone should have to pay. The biblical tithing rate is 10 percent. Shouldn’t what is enough for God be enough for Uncle Sam and local governments? Today, the average household pays roughly 38 cents of every dollar earned in taxes at all levels of government. That is, we are already paying almost 4 times what the Bible declares is necessary to be charitable individuals.

Donald Hughes, of Jesus.Journal.com raises one last beguiling ethical question: “Who says that a tax hike is going to help the poor anyway?”

That ‘s the question that no liberal dares to answer. To the left, it is an article of faith that big government helps people. But if that were the case the most Christian and the richest country in the 20th century would have been either Mao’s China or the former Soviet Union. After all, those communistic regimes loved the poor so much that they virtually imposed a 100 percent tax on workers. What they produced was not aid to the poor, but a lot of poor people.

Studies show that the nations with the most liberty and the lowest taxes have the least amount of poverty. Free enterprise is a Christian economic system because it does a better job than any other system ever devised to feed and clothe and house the poor. If you don’t believe that, go to some of the countries that do not practice free enterprise and compare the living standards of their poor with ours.

One of the lessons of history is to beware politicians who claim that God is their co-pilot. Some of the most dastardly political leaders — Hitler and Osama bin Laden jump immediately to mind — have invoked the name of God in building support for their acts of violence and affronts against freedom, including religious freedom.

So, no there is no moral case for paying higher taxes. In fact, if Gov. Riley really wants to do his Christian duty and help the poor, he should try cutting taxes, not raising them. I can’t vouch that he would have the Bible on his side, but he would have the sound economic theory solidly behind him.

[LS]

It is nonsense that Jesus had "no riches at all." He got a huge cache of gold from the (scholars think, up to 50) "wise men" who visited His house as a child (which Mary and Joseph, as dutiful Jewish parents, saved for Him and whatever His ministry was); He worked His entire adult life as a well-paid carpenter in a garrison town where the Romans spent money on military equipment quite freely; He paid the expenses of 12 men, plus Himself, for 3 1/2 years of ministry and we have not one instance in which they went hungry or unclothed or didn't have their OWN taxes paid; we have on several occasions specific references to the disicples having on their person money amounts in modern equivalents of up to $15,000; Jesus always sent disciples ahead to "book rooms" with deposits; on one occasion He specifically had to instruct His disciples NOT to take money belts (why would you have to tell them that if they were homeless, poverty-stricken vagabonds?); Peter's wife and mother-in-law were cared for during this time; Judas was the treasurer of the group (he held "the bag") and you don't need a treasurer unless you have a "treasury."

I could go on and on. Matthew had a house so large he held a party for Jesus in which the entire CITY came. Even after the Resurrection, when the church members supposedly had "shared all," we find they didn't share all, because they were holding church meetings in their HOUSES, which had to be pretty big by standards of the day.

Jesus commanded us to take care of those who can't take care of themselves, without question. You cannot do so if YOU CANNOT TAKE CARE OF YOURSELF. You can't give what you don't have.

As for taxes, it is reasonable to assume that since Jesus commanded us to obey the laws of tithing, He would not expect anyone to be obligated to give more than 10% to Caesar, so I think a 10% tax is reasonable---and no more!

Voluntary compassion for the poor, absolutely. The 10% tithe, if you notice, was the minimum! But it is a myth that Jesus and the disciples were poor, and I'm convinced it was a deliberate design of the devil to keep the God's church from being well funded to do His work.

[Alberta's Child]

Jesus "render unto Caesar" comment was not simply a discourse on the separation of church and state. It was a way of foretelling exactly what was going to happen to Him, in that the same Pharisees who were seeking to entrap him would later have him executed by "rendering him unto Caesar." That is, they would engage in the ultimate act of hubris and hypocrisy by having the Son of God executed, but by turning him over to Pontius Pilate while using their "religion" as an excuse not to do it themselves.

[LS]

All of which is easily answered by His commandment to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you," and to love your neighbor as yourself.

Many people, especially liberals, actually do not love themselvse (contrary to the image they put up). They hate themselves. That is why they are trying to satisfy themselves with everything except God.

I, on the other hand, love myself, because if I don't love myself, I can't begin to love my neighbor as myself.

So, to answer your question, to me it's easy. If I love myself, I'd like to drive a Ferrari, so if I love my neighbor, I want him to have the very best car he wants.

Likewise, if I love my neighbor, I want him to have a tax cut too, regardless of whether he is rich or poor. In fact, if he is a righteous man and very rich, I'd rather he have the cut than me, because I will be assured that a righteous man will use the money for God's kingdom, and since he has more of it, more will get done!

[LS]

True, but that doesn't take away from its essential truth that there is something obligated to the state (was Paul also reminds us), and there is something obligated to God.

I also find it interesting in the "gold from the fish's mouth" passage where Jesus in essence trivializes taxes, and in essence says, if you walk with Him, the "burdens" of the government will become so irrelevant that it will be like pullilng gold out of a fish's mouth.

[aruanan]

Well, the trick there, you see, is that everything is God's, including Caesar himself.

And the trick there, you see, as Calvin and Muhammed did, is that since everything is G-d's, then when one claims to speak exclusively for him one can also direct the use of all material resources by those who still want to be considered the faithful.

[shiva]

Tax-collectors were hated in Jesus's time because they collected above the amount and keep it. They became wealthy and lived lavishly. In other words...they were crooks! Simple, huh?

[Dick Bachert]

A remarkable essay appeared in the August 31st (1994) edition of the Wall Street Journal. Entitled "A Higher Authority on Taxes", it is a unique assessment of the just passed Clinton tax package. The author, Rabbi Daniel Lapin, does something the "dominant media culture" would have hammered a Christian for doing. The Rabbi states his conclusion in the very first paragraph: "The plan won't work because it contradicts specific and timeless principles expressed in the Bible".

WHOA!!

He rather methodically recites the Biblical laws of taxation, telling the reader that the Bible is the key to understanding the historically valid principle which states that, regardless of the level of taxation, folks will so arrange their affairs as to hold the national average government tax take UNDER approximately 19.5%! It's the same 19.5% the Egyptians paid to Pharaoh over 3,500 years ago -- and for the same reasons. And it's the same 19.5% a recent study indicates is STILL CURRENT!!

People have always resisted what they believe to be confiscatory taxation rates.

What does Scriptures have to say about OUR current tax rates? Quoting from Rabbi Lapin's essay: "Evidently, even the cruel scenario depicted by Samuel (earlier in the piece) could not envision a legitimate king claiming more than 10% of his own people's produce (1st Samuel 8:15). A king would impose higher taxes only upon his conquered enemies.

"Sure enough, in Joshua 17:13, the idea is put forth that heavy taxation is to be imposed only upon people for whom you do not care much."

The Rabbi concludes with this timely warning to us all:
"Finally, consider Proverbs 12:24. It declares that 'the hands of the diligent shall produce wealth but the lazy will be subject to taxation.' According to the 11th century sage, Rabbi Solomon Yitzchaki, these words warn that excessive taxation hinders productivity and comes to pass only through the laziness and indifference of citizens who decline to resist the oppression. In other words, resisting a government's instinct to tax requires vigilance and energy. As the prophet Samuel warned, if we fail to exert the necessary vigilance and energy, we shall have only ourselves to blame for the consequences."

(Footnote added by moi)
THE MESSAGE IS CLEAR: IF GOVERNMENT WISHES TO REMAIN AT ITS CURRENT SIZE OR EXPAND (TWO THOROUGHLY DETESTABLE OPTIONS!), IT SHOULD LOWER TAX RATES IN ORDER TO GROW THE GDP SO THAT ITS 19.5% "TAKE" (AS BY FORCE!) REPRESENTS A LARGER ABSOLUTE NUMBER!

[ChewedGum]

Rabbi Daniel Lapin is great!

Gum

[Dick Bachert]

He is, indeed!

[William Terrell]

I think Jesus was refering to an issue a wee bit outside of that box. It was an attempt to trap Him into revolutionary admissions, and He turned the tables quite neatly.

[Consort]

High taxes are just one of the ways Jesus punishes all the people, good and bad,....but he loves us.