Render Unto Ceasar...

[_Droopy]

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?

[_emilysmith]

Under Joseph Smith's paradigm, would everyone not willingly give up their property, wealth and wives because god commands it?

[_moksha]

Droopy, probably choice #3.

However, if the Utah State Legislature was involved, probably choice #2 if lobbyists could cough up enough financial incentive for the legislators to ignore the best interest of the majority of their constituents. Plenty of Utah Jazz tickets, paid "fact finding tours", free meals and abundant campaign donations should do the trick.

[Guest]

Droopy, probably choice #3.

Why?

[_ludwigm]

Caesar, if I may ask...

And progressive taxation. I am leftist.

[_moksha]

Droopy, probably choice #3.

Why?

The scenario you stated of the Church controlling the means of production and the fair distribution of all that is produced sounds like a well run Kingdom of Deseret. Remember, in the 12th Article of Faith Kings was placed ahead of Presidents and other rulers. 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.

[_Droopy]

The scenario you stated of the Church controlling the means of production and the fair distribution of all that is produced sounds like a well run Kingdom of Deseret.

The Salt Lake UO was a survival oriented UO, intended to ensure that the Saints did not starve to death and die of exposure to the elements in a barren wilderness. If you will look again at the D&C, and the body of later commentary by the Brethren, the UO as practiced in Nauvoo, and as will be practiced in the forthcoming Zion, is only related to the Salt Lake Valley UP of the Mormon exodus West in bare outline.

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.

[_Gadianton]

Jesus was a libertarian who would never directly tax, but who effectively implemented a regressive tax, a "poor tax", similar to a state lottery.

Jesus was a strict moralist. But his moral view held that for an act to be good, it must be voluntary, where the best voluntary acts are typified by personal sacrifice for the common good. When government forces people to sacrifice for the whole, such as by paying a tax, it robs them of their opportunity to voluntarily sacrifice for the greater good, and therefore it robs them of the opportunity to be moral.

Jesus took note as the rich shook the bags of gold they gave away. Their gift was not a sacrafice, representing only a small material loss to their fortunes, but rather, a token representing their importance. Who has more gold? Is it the man who sits nervously on his treasure chest, afraid to give anyone a peek, or the man who leaves his treasure chest open for display, who without second thought, grabs a handful of lucre and spreads it around?

Jesus also watched the widow give her mite, which represented a 100% loss of her material wealth. In another story, Jesus observed that it would be more difficult for a rich man to pass through the Eye Of The Needle than into the kingdom of God, because Jesus knew that typically, the rich will not give so much that as to represent a material loss to their fortunes. If they did, of course, they would become poor. Since we can infer from these teachings that the rich are good less often than the poor are, it follows that voluntary contributions of individuals to the group are regressive. And since Jesus cannot forcefully "right" the situation without destroying the fabric of morality, he has implemented a de facto "poor tax."

[_Droopy]

Jesus was a libertarian who would never directly tax, but who effectively implemented a regressive tax, a "poor tax", similar to a state lottery.

The tithe?

Jesus was a strict moralist. But his moral view held that for an act to be good, it must be voluntary, where the best voluntary acts are typified by personal sacrifice for the common good. When government forces people to sacrifice for the whole, such as by paying a tax, it robs them of their opportunity to voluntarily sacrifice for the greater good, and therefore it robs them of the opportunity to be moral.

Atlantis has risen again. We essentially agree here.

Jesus also watched the widow give her mite, which represented a 100% loss of her material wealth. In another story, Jesus observed that it would be more difficult for a rich man to pass through the Eye Of The Needle than into the kingdom of God, because Jesus knew that typically, the rich will not give so much that as to represent a material loss to their fortunes. If they did, of course, they would become poor.

This seems to have a logical problem. Not giving away some portion of one's wealth because it would represent a material loss to their fortunes is a long way from utterly impoverishing themselves by so doing (giving all their wealth away and by so doing, entering the ranks of the poor themselves). The first would be an indication of greed or avarice, while the second only of rational self preservation and an understanding that, if they are not affluent themselves, they cannot give at all.

Since we can infer from these teachings that the rich are good less often than the poor are,

But we can't, as any such inference will commit a logical fallacy in assuming that, if rich people, collectively speaking, have some weakness (greed), it follows that poor people, collectively speaking, do not. Because one class exhibits some attribute (greed), it does not logically follow that another class (the poor) do not exhibit it simple because they are different than the other class along some arbitrarily chosen dimension (relative wealth).

It does not follow that because many actors are rich, all or most non-actors are not. It does not follow that since many poor people steal, commit numerous petty crimes, and represent a disproportionate share of addicts in rehab facilities, that the rich do not also engage in these kinds of activities.

There is no teaching in the scriptures, anywhere, that the poor, as a class, are inherently more virtuous than "the rich" (and who are "the rich?" A person making $35,000 dollars a year is "rich" compared to someone making minimum wage, and both are rich compared to a homeless wino).

The "poor in spirit," yes. Wealth? No.

The the scriptures nowhere indicate that the poor, as a class designation, can get through the needles eye any faster or with greater frequency than "the rich," save they, like the rich, comply with the requirements of the gospel and live according to its precepts.

it follows that voluntary contributions of individuals to the group are regressive. And since Jesus cannot forcefully "right" the situation without destroying the fabric of morality, he has implemented a de facto "poor tax."

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. And why, in any case, should not the poor be required to contribute something for the physical maintenance of the church of which they are a part and the community within which they live?

[_Gadianton]

Hi Droopy,

I probably should have noted my discussion is from the Gospels, the Jesus of the Bible. If Jesus implemented the tithe there, then I stand corrected; my recollection is he didn't.

I believe form the examples I cite; Jesus telling the rich man to sell all he has who never did; Jesus acknowledging the appropriate sacrifice of the widow who gave all she had while he dismissed the nominally large contributions of the rich, we learn:

-The rich are known universally to resist parting with their wealth in any substantial way for the causes of God.

-There are several cases where rich in particular have failed to part with their wealth for the cause of God.

-There are no cases where rich in particular are acknowledged to have exacted the financial price God expects.

-There are no universal statements from Jesus questioning the poor's willingness to sacrifice their sustenance for the sake of God.

-There are multiple examples where poor have impressed Jesus with their voluntary giving, giving that is substantial with respect to their circumstance.

-There are no cases where a poor person was chastised for not giving enough with respect to circumstance.

So to the extent we have evidence to say what kind of tax Jesus would implement, it would be a regressive tax that parallels the state lottery. Lotteries are voluntary, not technically a tax, and the poor spend more of their income on lottery tickets than the rich. The poor, per Jesus, seem more likely to donate a higher percentage of their money to the cause of God than the rich.

I think to rebut this claim you can say that the Gospel's evidence is too scant to firmly make my case; this might be true, but the alternative i fear is no case will be made to justify a Jesus-approved tax structure. Alternatively, examples from the Gospels that contradict any of the 6 statements I made above could be evidence that His tax is flat or progressive.