Brazilian pro-life candidate Bolsonaro in critical election today.

[Heinrich]

What do you make of the Pius XII quote?

Here it is again:

There can be no doubt concerning the duty of each citizen to bear a part of the public expense.
It is the obligation of the state, however—insofar as it is charged with protecting and promoting the
common good of citizens—to assess upon its citizens only necessary levies which are, furthermore,
proportionate to their means.

He very clearly indicates that the government is to see to it that citizens are taxed only according to their means.

The bolded can be interpreted otherwise. There is absolutely no clear indication of the necessity of an income tax. What was the tax structure in the Middle Ages(Christendom)? Not a rhetorical question. I want to know. The income tax in the US was not manifested until 1913ish. I hardly believe that the status quo money masters of the time read the Pope and conspired to implement Catholic social(economic) order. Revenue for the state is indeed necessary for civil structure. That is common sense. But taxing a man's labor is just plain wrong. His fruits are his, yet he is bound to alms by Heavenly decree. Forced "Charity" by gun is not a supernatural Grace.

James R., I will happily buy you a copy of James' book.

[james03]

No Mike, I do cover Pope Leo's "extreme circumstance" exemption, when a family is cut off from all other help.

You all have been brain washed into thinking the government's job is to take care of "poor" people.  You probably also think it is the government's job to provide schools.  And since you are from Canada, I know you have been brainwashed into thinking government should also provide medical services.  This is marxism.

For over a thousand years this was done by the Church as Pope Leo points out in RN.  Socialism has also been condemned directly by the Church.

[james.rogerson]

Heinrich, thanks for the offer, but I've read it on Scribd. The other James is to papal encyclicals what Jefferson is to Sacred Scripture.

Until you blokes start supporting your positions with magisterial statements I won't believe you're serious about any of this.

[Jacob]

On income tax in the US, watch part one of Ken Burns' documentary Prohibition.

It is shown that the income tax amendment was pushed because progressives needed a means of raising money to replace revenue from alcohol taxes which had been up to that point more than enough to fund the federal government's activities.

[james03]

If you've written a book concerning papal encyclicals, you'll have no difficulty in producing relevant texts to support your position.

What "position" are you talking about?  I have been debating one point, that only a flat income tax is acceptable because it is proportionate.  The Pope Pius quote you provide is perfectly fine because it supports my position.

2. Those taxes should be proportionate to the means of the citizen to pay them.

You are like Luther adding "alone".  No, that is not what is written.  The levy should be proportionate to means.  Means is synonymous with income.  The absurdity of your interpretation, which is marxist, is easily demonstrated.  If a rich man has a huge mortgage, car payments, and 2 tuitions to Harvard to pay for, according to your interpretation he should pay very little tax.

[Heinrich]

Heinrich, thanks for the offer, but I've read it on Scribd. The other James is to papal encyclicals what Jefferson is to Sacred Scripture.

Until you blokes start supporting your positions with magisterial statements I won't believe you're serious about any of this.

James R., you are supporting your socialist leanings with YOUR interpretations of magisterial statements. Much of your arguing is a begging the question fallacy. You waded into this, now it is up to you to clearly and expertly write a refutation review of James' entire text. Point by point.

In full disclosure, too: James and I disagree on the machinations of Distributism. We have been at it for at least ten years, but I clearly fall to his side in belief of compensation in toto of man's labor and subsidiarity.

[james03]

My position on taxes is as follows:

1.  A flat income tax would not offend justice, since it is proportionate.  I really tried to find an argument against it, but could not.  You can argue that a rich man "consumes" more national defense (he has more to defend) and police services.  My argument is more on along the lines of efficiency and State power, which is very dangerous.  A flat sales tax is far more efficient and also proportionate.  The problem with the income tax is defining "income".   It also requires a massive police state using gestapo tactics to spy on people.  Then there is the corruption.  There's a whole industry centered around defining "income" which we call lobbyists.  A flat sales tax does away with all of these problems.

2.  A graduated income tax is marxist and rests on the maxim: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs", which is why it is one of the ten planks of the Communist Manifesto (along with a central bank and public schools).  By definition a graduated income tax is disproportionate. 

[james03]

So what would the US look like if it's government was confined by the common good requirement (as opposed to a particular good) and subsidiarity?

The budget would be reduced to $600 Billion from roughly $4 Trillion.  We'd have a 10% flat import tariff providing $100 Billion.  We'd have a 4% sales tax on final sales of goods and services.  Based on $14 Trillion in consumption, that would be $560 Billion.  And that would be it.  No IRS, no lobbyists.

This would provide for the common good: defense and a Federal court system.  Everything else would be outright abolished or pushed down to the State level.

[james.rogerson]

James: you are still not producing magisterial teaching to support your position; your responses consist of unsubstantiated assertion and a generous helping of ad hominem, all given with a fair degree of asperity. 

Anyone looking for a truly joyous and mirth-filled five minutes should check out the Amazon reviews of James's 96-page booklet. There are four reviews. Three awarded the opusculum the maximum five out of five stars and one loser gave it only one star. Of the satisfied reviewers, one is our illustrious author himself, who, in a move lesser men might have rejected as immodest, surveys his work, sees that it is very good, and renders the only possible verdict- five stars. The next reviewer is a lady who, in one of those coincidences that do sometimes happen in the life of literary men, shares the author's surname. She expresses interest in a possible sequel (she should have no fear of lack of material: the author could fill several more books with the bits of papal magisterium he saw fit to excise in this book); another five stars. The third satisfied customer doesn't review the book at all but gives a paean of praise to the author's "Herculean intellect" (I'm not making this up). Five stars. The carping, cavilling dolt who gave the book one star accuses the author of "copying and pasting;" this is a dreadful calumny. James didn't just copy and paste- he exercised the blue pencil on the Holy Fathers too, as well as wielding the Jeffersonian scissors with alacrity. This sort of thing takes time, effort and a degree of skill that merits more than that lone star.

James honoured me with his diagnosis of the Marxist state of my mind. In gratitude I freely offer the following advice: take all your Ayn Rand books and burn them. Have a chat about what troubles you with a traditional priest you trust. Sit down and read the social encyclicals and approved authors. Then you'll be ready to converse with your fellow Catholics who learn their faith from Holy Mother Church and not from trashy atheist novelists.

[james.rogerson]

I have a quick quiz question for anyone who wants to discuss what the Church teaches about taxation: name all the magisterial documents that touch on tax up until 1958. If you can't do that, you're not ready seriously to discuss these questions.

[james03]

James: you are still not producing magisterial teaching to support your position;

Again, answer this question: What position are you talking about that I need to provide Church documents to support?.  I'm relying on the Pius XII quote you provided.  A levy should be proportionate to means.  What other position are you talking about?

and a generous helping of ad hominem

LOL, leftists always are guilty of projection.  It is weird how I see this over and over again.  Note he then goes on an ad hominem emotional screed.

Are you talking about my claim your thinking is Marxist?  What did I cite?:
1.  From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. -- Karl Marx.  Do you agree that people who espouse this view are rightly called Marxist?

2.  I point out that the graduated income tax, which you espouse, is directly listed in the Communist Manifesto.

Is this what you mean by my ad hominem attack?

[james.rogerson]

If you agree with Pius XII that a levy should be proportionate to income, you accept the principal of graduated taxation.

He is saying that people should be taxed based on their means. Taxing paupers and princes at 4% is not taxing people according to their means; it is taxing people regardless of their means.

Pius XII's teaching is a mere specification of the earlier teaching of Leo XIII and Pius XI in which the state's right to control the exercise of private property is declared.

But, other than misreading sources I've provided, you've brought no magisterial documents to the discussion to support your contention that only a flat rate income tax is just.

You can't even name all the magisterial documents that touch on tax.

Gardener and Heinrich have provided no magisterial support for their claim that income tax is per se unjust.

As far as I can tell the only reason you adduce for the claim that graduated income tax is immoral is that it appears in the Communist Manifesto. I've no idea whether that's true or not- unlike you I don't spend time reading atheist trash from the Index- but on the strength of that reasoning you might as well say that commas are Marxist.

For what's it's worth, the principle "from each according to ability, to each according to need" is a pretty sound premise for tax policy, regardless of whether Marx said it or not.

Come on you Herculean intellect: name all the magisterial documents that touch on tax; and find the papal condemnation of graduated tax. Eager readers are waiting.

[james03]

Taxing paupers and princes at 4% is not taxing people according to their means;

Agreed.  It is taxing them proportionate to their means.   "According to their means" is marxist.

Pius XII's teaching is a mere specification of the earlier teaching of Leo XIII and Pius XI in which the state's right to control the exercise of private property is declared.

No it is not, but that is a non-sequitur regardless.

But, other than misreading sources I've provided, you've brought no magisterial documents to the discussion to support your contention that only a flat rate income tax is just.

What part of flat import duty and flat sales tax didn't you comprehend?

For what's it's worth, the principle "from each according to ability, to each according to need" is a pretty sound premise for tax policy, regardless of whether Marx said it or not.

After all the wasted electrons you finally admit you agree with the marxist world view, at least in this area.  The Church condemns the marxist view.  From QA:

"That We, in keeping with Our fatherly solicitude, may answer their petitions, We make this pronouncement: Whether considered as a doctrine, or an historical fact, or a movement, Socialism, if it remains truly Socialism, even after it has yielded to truth and justice on the points which we have mentioned, cannot be reconciled with the teachings of the Catholic Church because its concept of society itself is utterly foreign to Christian truth. ......  Religious socialism, Christian socialism, are contradictory terms; no one can be at the same time a good Catholic and a true socialist."

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" is the bedrock core concept for a socialist society.

[james.rogerson]

You don't need to reply until you find the papal condemnation of graduated income tax.

We could be really generous and ask you to provide a mere episcopal condemnation of graduated income tax; you folks have had marginal rate taxation since 1913. I presume the bishops would have condemned it back then? Or were they all Marxists and leftists?

I really reckon that having a crack at the other question will help you though: find out what all the magisterial documents concerning taxation are.

[james03]

LOL.  Dude, I know your type.  I am under no illusion that I can change your marxist world view.  My target audience is the other readers.  Go back and reread the debate.  I accuse you of marxist views.  You call that an ad hominem attack, and then proceed to launch into an emotional ad hominem rant.  Then you concede that you agree with marx.

Furthermore like Luther you inject words into Pope Pius's statement and totally ignore the word "proportionate".  You double down and complain that a 4% tax would not tax "according" to someone's means.  Keep in mind all of the other readers are seeing this.

Mission accomplished.