Gadianton wrote: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?