Render Unto Ceasar...

[_moksha]

A theocratic kingdom does not need a competing plutocracy of power wielding fat cats. It needs fairness to allow all men the same privilege so they can be honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in do good for all.

Your view then, is that "fairness" and its attendant moral virtues can only be assured through the use of coercive force, and the through a regimented, collectivized command oriented social order.

As Thomas Hobbes pointed out, we need to have a social order that can countermand the wishes of the natural man to act selfishly without the interest of society in mind. When everyone behaves in natural and unrestrained manner we may have true libertarianism but we would also have chaos. A truely benevolent theocratically ruled society seems like a way to achieve fairness while holding corruption at bay.

[_Drifting]

4. The members decide on how much to donate and to what fund/use it is allocated.
(This would be made easier for the members because full reports of expenditure are given to all who have donated).

[_subgenius]

As a matter of theoretical exploration, which would be more compatible with the gospel of Jesus Christ as taught in the LDS church:

1. Steep, progressive taxation.

2. A low, simple, flat tax that taxes all income at the same rate (non-progressive)

3. The state (or church) controls the means of production and the distribution of all income (and controls wages, prices etc.) and distributes to each a "fair" share of communal (societal) wealth?

As it pertains to the title of this thread, any of the above would be appropriate, simply because it does not matter to the church...it is for Caesar to decide and only for us to render.

However, as it pertains to your actual OP question...none of the above are compatible.

It is critical that you recognize that Jesus spoke this phrase about rendering only after He asked whose image was upon the penny. One must also consider the context of that Biblical event - the Roman poll tax rebellion and its consequences.
The real problem with your hypothetical is that it is either ignoring the teaching of Christ with the "render to Caesar" lesson or you have posted a "trick" question.
This is simply because the Gospel lesson here is that Jesus teaches that money is part of the Gentile state and thus should be given to it - lawfully. But He is clear that when something belongs to God it belongs to God and should be given unto Him.
Interestingly enough, though Christ establishes a clear division between a secular and religious authority, he does not exactly provide the sure-fire means to distinguish them - aside from seeing Caesar's face on a coin.

[_Droopy]

As it pertains to the title of this thread, any of the above would be appropriate, simply because it does not matter to the church...it is for Caesar to decide and only for us to render.

I would have to disagree here. The Church only exists within other otherwise non-church cultural and political contexts, and, as D&C Section 135 makes clear, government qua government comes under gospel critique and the gospel itself intersects the theory and practice of the state in matters of both core principle and application to actual human existence. Therefore, some theories and practices of the state are going to be closer or farther from gospel principles to the degree it leans, or tends, one way or the other. This is not an argument that any government or tax policy could be ideal, in a gospel sense, but only that it can tend and direct itself more toward or away from gospel ideals.

However, as it pertains to your actual OP question...none of the above are compatible.

Quite clearly, a flat, fair, non-progressive tax would be far closer than any other form. The idea is much like the concept of the tithe, transferred, however, to a broad government context covering all members of a society regardless of religious affiliation.

The real problem with your hypothetical is that it is either ignoring the teaching of Christ with the "render to Caesar" lesson or you have posted a "trick" question.

It neither ignores Jesus' statement nor is a trick question. It is a hypothetical question asking which means of taxation is closer, or a better overall fit, with gospel principles, than another. It asks which system best approaches gospel ideals, not that any are or could be ideal in a gospel sense.

This is simply because the Gospel lesson here is that Jesus teaches that money is part of the Gentile state and thus should be given to it - lawfully.

Jesus makes no such statement in the New Testament, nor implies such in the discourse in question. Money is part of any economy or society beyond or which wishes to rise beyond the state of subsistence poverty and barter economics, and is hence perfectly compatible with any society that functions at that economic level.

Your argument that all money qua money belongs to Caesar is, as money is nothing more than a form of property that is also a general medium of exchange, also an argument that property qua property belongs to the state. If all money belongs to the state, and should be given to it when the state calls for it, no logical principle would seem to place any barrier between any other form of property being claimed by Caesar by fiat.

But He is clear that when something belongs to God it belongs to God and should be given unto Him.

Indeed, but just because something belongs to God, it does not follow that God hoards these things and keeps them from his children and begrudges them control and responsibility over his resources as responsible, agency bearing beings.

Unlike all things belonging to God, however, the same argument cannot be made about government and either money or other forms of property who's value is expressed as a money price. God is the ultimate creator of all things and all resources. Government may, indeed, create money, but it does not create wealth or value, nor the other forms of property who's value is expressed as a price in monetary terms. Legitimate government, in a gospel sense, does not and cannot extend "stewardships" to human beings for which the steward owes an accounting to government, as God extends stewardships to his children.

Any government that sees itself in this light (and many have and do) has already lost moral and intellectual legitimacy and taken the place of God with respect to its relationship to its citizens.

Interestingly enough, though Christ establishes a clear division between a secular and religious authority, he does not exactly provide the sure-fire means to distinguish them - aside from seeing Caesar's face on a coin.

But, of course, Jesus' few and cryptic words in the New Testament are not the last word on the subject, either of his or of others who have been inspired by him.

[_subgenius]

Jesus makes no such statement in the New Testament, nor implies such in the discourse in question.

But Christ exactly makes that statement when He says : "Render unto Ceasar..." after the inquiry about whose face is upon the coin.

Your argument that all money qua money belongs to Caesar is, as money is nothing more than a form of property that is also a general medium of exchange, also an argument that property qua property belongs to the state. If all money belongs to the state, and should be given to it when the state calls for it, no logical principle would seem to place any barrier between any other form of property being claimed by Caesar by fiat.

Logical principle? not sure of the relevance here.
However, there is no Gospel principle that places "any barrier" as to what you describe.

I am not aware of any Gospel Principle that looks for loopholes and cheats in the tax code. Nor am i aware of any GP that conveys what an appropriate tax bracket is.
The notion that Tithing has a conceptual common ground with a flat tax (or any tax) is just absurd and a confusion of one for the other.

Ponder 2 Cor 9:7
Every man according as he purposes in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loves a cheerful giver.

I am not sure i follow your line of reasoning with this topic and D&C 135, but i am interested in what particular Gospel Principle you consider to be at the "intersection" with taxation?

especially in light of your following statement:
...gospel itself intersects the theory and practice of the state in matters of both core principle and application to actual human existence

[_Analytics]

The concept of the tithe takes $1 from the person who has ten, $10 from he who has $100, and $10,000,000 from he who has $100,000,000. This may be regressive, but its also fair and flat….

By definition, this simply is not true. Regressive tax schemes aren’t flat. Flat tax means a constant percentage of your income goes to the state, regardless of how much income you make. Progressive tax means people with a higher income pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes. Regressive tax means people with a lower income pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes.

In the United States, income tax is generally progressive (depending upon how much of your money is in capital gains). Payroll tax, sales tax, and property tax are regressive. The net result is that people with high incomes (like Warren Buffet) generally pay a much smaller percentage of their total income in taxes than people with low incomes (like Warren Buffet’s secretary). In aggregate, the current United States tax system doesn’t soak the rich—it soaks the poor; it is a regressive system.

Do you think a system where the poor pay a higher percentage of their total income in taxes than the rich do is in harmony with the gospel of Jesus Christ?

[_Droopy]

But Christ exactly makes that statement when He says : "Render unto Ceasar..." after the inquiry about whose face is upon the coin.

I really see nothing more here than that Jesus is telling Peter to obey the laws of the land. I'm not at all sure I see a implied theory of economics hiding behind it. Elder James E. Talmadge clarifies this his his Articles of Faith:

A question has many times been asked of the Church and of its individual members, to this effect: In the case of a conflict between the requirements made by the revealed word of God, and those imposed by the secular law, which of these authorities would the members of the Church be bound to obey? In answer, the words of Christ may be applied—it is the duty of the people to render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.

Pending the overruling by Providence in favor of religious liberty, it is the duty of the saints to submit themselves to the laws of their country. Nevertheless, they should use every proper method, as citizens or subjects of their several governments, to secure for themselves and for all men the boon of freedom in 6
religious service. It is not required of them to suffer without protest imposition by lawless persecutors, or through the operation of unjust laws; but their protests should be offered in legal and proper order. The saints have practically demonstrated their acceptance of the doctrine that it is better to suffer evil than to do wrong by purely human opposition to unjust authority. And if by thus submitting themselves to the laws of the land, in the event of such laws being unjust and subversive of human freedom, the people be prevented from doing the work appointed them of God, they are not to be held accountable for the failure to act under the higher law.

Hugh B. Brown also commented on the individual breaking of law in protest of laws of which one disapproves, at least in a reasonably free, democratic society:

To follow such thinking is to decide that every man is entitled to choose which law he will abide and which he will violate. No orderly society can be established on such theory. There are lawful ways and means of securing all human rights, and one does not foster Christian virtue through irresponsible breaking of the law. Seeds of anarchy are sowed in the minds of those who follow a lawless course. Anarchy was never the way of God but rather the way of Satan

Jesus' words here, in other words, are a teaching about civil society and the requirements of the law regarding the relationship of the Christian to the state, not about economics. Saints need not agree with, and may oppose strenuous the policies of the governments in which they live, but can only do so within the boundaries of gospel principle as related to the circumstances as they may be.

Your argument that all money qua money belongs to Caesar is, as money is nothing more than a form of property that is also a general medium of exchange, also an argument that property qua property belongs to the state. If all money belongs to the state, and should be given to it when the state calls for it, no logical principle would seem to place any barrier between any other form of property being claimed by Caesar by fiat.

Logical principle? not sure of the relevance here. However, there is no Gospel principle that places "any barrier" as to what you describe.

Its simply taking the point you made, that all money is essentially Ceasar's to its logical conclusion,given that all money is also nothing more than a special form of property. There is no clear limit to the extension of this argument to the point at which, if all money belongs to Caesar, all forms of property cannot also be said to belong to him. Money is nothing more than a special form of property that, beyond its role as a medium of exchange, behaves as any other form of property.

I am not aware of any Gospel Principle that looks for loopholes and cheats in the tax code. Nor am i aware of any GP that conveys what an appropriate tax bracket is.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here, as the argument isn't about cheating on taxes but began as a discussion about the appropriate form of taxation most harmonizable with gospel principles, and in particular, moral principles. That is to say, there most certainly is (and must be) a intersection between the gospel and the appropriate form and level of taxation. This must be because gospel ethics do not only apply to private individuals, but as well to individuals who govern, make, and enforce laws. Tax laws that violate gospel principles are just as liable as business practices that violate gospel principles to gospel scrutiny. The handling of and relationship to money and property are profoundly moral questions, and even more so for the state as the state is the entity that holds a monopoly on the use of coercive force.

The notion that Tithing has a conceptual common ground with a flat tax (or any tax) is just absurd and a confusion of one for the other.

The tithe is, in essence, a voluntary flat tax, in which each pays according to his ability and resources.

I am not sure i follow your line of reasoning with this topic and D&C 135, but i am interested in what particular Gospel Principle you consider to be at the "intersection" with taxation?

1. The eighth and tenth commandments.

2. D&C 121:39

3. D&C 134:1:

1 We believe that governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man; and that he holds men accountable for their acts in relation to them, both in making laws and administering them, for the good and safety of society.

4. D&C 134:2

5. Mosiah 11:6

6. Mosiah 2:14

7. Articles of Faith 1:13:

We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul—We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.

Proverbs 29:2

Etc., etc., etc.

[_Droopy]

Flat tax means a constant percentage of your income goes to the state, regardless of how much income you make.

Correct.

Progressive tax means people with a higher income pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes.

Correct.

Regressive tax means people with a lower income pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes.

Not that simple. This is only true at some point within various levels of income, and in the real world, exemptions can be made, beginning at certain income levels, to prevent such regressivity from occurring.

In the United States, income tax is generally progressive (depending upon how much of your money is in capital gains). Payroll tax, sales tax, and property tax are regressive.

Payroll tax is not regressive, it is a progressive tax that increases in rate as income rises.

The net result is that people with high incomes (like Warren Buffet) generally pay a much smaller percentage of their total income in taxes than people with low incomes (like Warren Buffet’s secretary). In aggregate, the current United States tax system doesn’t soak the rich—it soaks the poor; it is a regressive system.

Pure sophistry. The present U.S. tax system is deeply biased against savings, investment, and entrepreneurship. The problem here is that you have not even begun to scratch the surface of the taxes the rich, corporations, and, most importantly, small business actually pay, and the high walls and barriers to entrance into the marketplace presented by the American tax system. High corporate, capital gains, dividend, and estate taxes are only the surface of the iceberg.

The fact of the matter is that, while certain individual rich people like Buffet may pay a smaller relative share of personal income in taxes, in the aggregate the rich are paying virtually the entire tax burden, and "the rich" includes countless small businesses who file taxes as individuals.

The breakdown looks like this:

The top 1% 36.73% of all income tax

The top 5% pays 58.66%

The top 10% 70.47%

The top 25% pays 87.30%

The top 50% 97.75%

Despite what Warren Buffet may pay in personal disposable income, the reality is that most profits from productive industries and businesses are plowed back into the business, after taxes and overhead, the largest fraction of which is payroll. High, progressive, multilayered taxes that tax the same dollars over and over again each time any attempt is made to use them to create further wealth affects and influences the incentives to work, save, and invest, and hence deeply influences the creation of jobs and entrepreneurial opportunity (and hence, economic growth).

Do you think a system where the poor pay a higher percentage of their total income in taxes than the rich do is in harmony with the gospel of Jesus Christ?

I think a system in which someone who makes $10,000 a year contributes $1,000 to the social safety net and services that aids and helps support him is reasonable, and which takes $10,000,000 from someone who makes $100,000,000 more reasonable still.

The progressivity of the present income and payroll tax system has no rational basis from an economic or moral standpoint. Its major symbolic purpose, especially as marginal rates soared during the Roosevelt years, is as a sop to populist class warfare sentiments in the general population and as a means of controlling and manipulating business and economic activity generally. Empirically, we know historically that high rates discourage productive economic activity and wealth creation, and actually decrease government revenue over the long term.

The real meaning of progressive taxes, as Marx well understood, was to create a vast class of citizens ultimately dependent upon other citizens, through the mediation of the state, for their sustenance, and to create in that vast cohort of citizens an inherent bias against limited government and personal responsibility for economic well being. It is to create, in other words, a massive constituency with an inherent stake in the endless and open ended expansion in the size and scope of government.

The engine of state power is confiscated private wealth, and the United States tax code is the foremost engine of social engineering in the modern interventionist nanny state. Progressive taxation isn't about money so much as about control of human behavior through control of property and economic resources.

The death tax brings in very little income, and yet its abolition is resisted tooth, claw, and stinger by the Left because through it, they are able to destroy the control of private property by private individuals as it is passed from parents to children. It is taking control of wealth away from private individuals that is all important here, not the quantity per se.

[_Analytics]

Regressive tax means people with a lower income pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes.

Not that simple. This is only true at some point within various levels of income, and in the real world, exemptions can be made, beginning at certain income levels, to prevent such regressivity from occurring.

Yes, it is that simple; that is the definition of regressive taxes. The fact that some taxes aren't regressive doesn't change the definition.

In the United States, income tax is generally progressive (depending upon how much of your money is in capital gains). Payroll tax, sales tax, and property tax are regressive.

Payroll tax is not regressive, it is a progressive tax that increases in rate as income rises.

That's simply not true; payroll tax is regressive. The rate does not increase as income rises. It is a constant rate that is applied from the first dollar of income, up to $106,800. For every dollar earned after that, the rate is zero.

Here are some examples:

Income: $10,000 Tax Paid: $765 Tax as % of Income: 7.65%
Income: $50,000 Tax Paid: $6,120 Tax as % of Income: 7.65%
Income: $150,000 Tax Paid: $8,170 Tax as % of Income: 5.45%
Income: $300,000 Tax Paid: $8,170 Tax as % of Income: 2.72%
Income: $1,000,000 Tax Paid: $8,170 Tax as % of Income: 0.82%

The payroll tax is regressive. The more money you make, the lower total tax as a percentage of income.

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/ProgData/taxRates.html
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/COLA/cbb.html#Series

The net result is that people with high incomes (like Warren Buffet) generally pay a much smaller percentage of their total income in taxes than people with low incomes (like Warren Buffet’s secretary). In aggregate, the current United States tax system doesn’t soak the rich—it soaks the poor; it is a regressive system.

Pure sophistry. The present U.S. tax system is deeply biased against savings, investment, and entrepreneurship....

The breakdown looks like this:

The top 1% 36.73% of all income tax

The top 5% pays 58.66%

The top 10% 70.47%

The top 25% pays 87.30%

The top 50% 97.75%

These statistics don't contradict what I said about income taxes (typically) being progressive, depending upon how much you make in capital gains.

But if you want to have an intelligent and honest discussion about it, you need to talk about the entire tax burden (i.e. payroll tax, sales tax, property tax, etc.) and not just income tax. And you need to base it on percent of total income, not percent of total tax receipts.

[_Runtu]

That's simply not true; payroll tax is regressive. The rate does not increase as income rises. It is a constant rate that is applied from the first dollar of income, up to $106,800. For every dollar earned after that, the rate is zero.

That's correct. I'm surprised that Droopy did not know this.