To Tax or Not to Tax

2000-9-19 10:47:00

Question:
It is obvious that each group, government and country requires some funds to accomplish group objectives. What should be the guiding principle in obtaining money for group goals? Is it right to tax the people? If so how much tax is appropriate? Is it right to take money by force for a good cause from people who do not support that cause?

Well, my friends, from the answers we have received so far on this it doesn't sound like there are many big government tax-and-spend people on this list - or if there are they are hesitant to speak their mind.

In the free governments of the world there are two forces playing themselves out. The negative force is driving governments toward bigger and bigger government that tax the people more and more, with the promise of greater and greater benefits that the majority see as some type of free lunch. These growing governments offer increasing regulations imposed on the people "for their own good." The second force is toward greater freedom and individual responsibility.

This last force is stronger in the hearts of men and women than it appears. Unfortunately, as it is presently playing out, freedom and personal responsibility seems to be losing the war. Each person has a piece of the pie and doesn't want to give up any of his benefits even if the whole ship is sinking. There are many who claim to be advocates of freedom who are merely deceived. They do not see clearly the principles which empower it. Selfishness and illusion cloud the minds of many. If their own benefits are enhanced at the expense of the many, they are deceived into thinking that freedom is enhanced.

True freedom is increased only when the benefit, seen as increased freedom, extends to the whole and is supported by the whole.

There are several things to look for in deciding on the principles that should rule a country or group:

(1) The people must have a say in deciding their destiny.

This first principle is indeed lacking today in all countries. In all parts of the world, restrictions in freedom are made where the majority has little to say about it.

(2) The majority of the people should feel happy and satisfied with the laws and regulations imposed. The majority is the bare minimum. Ideally two thirds of the people should be satisfied.

In the United States, for instance, the majority is quite unsatisfied in the overall system, but makes no positive efforts for change. Most individuals who desire change usually require it of their neighbors and not themselves. If we desire to live in a situation of maximum freedom we must all be willing to accept changes that affect ourselves as well as others.

As far as something specific like the ideal tax there are several possibilities.

In ancient Israel the government was financed by a voluntary tithe of ten percent. Ten percent is a fair enough tax if that is all we had to pay. If we paid that and nothing else, few would complain.(It is interesting that those who tithe today usually give to some religious organization in addition to 30-50% to their government; so today's loss of income is much greater than that which occurred in ancient Israel.)

Ideally, a voluntary ten percent tax should be able to run any efficient government. If the consciousness of the people is not up to a voluntary tax, the majority would probably support something reasonable like a ten percent sales tax and a modest gasoline tax. Lotteries were used back in the days of George Washington and could be used again if necessary. I've never bought a lottery ticket in my life, but would be willing to do so if I thought the profits were being used wisely.

Many of the teachers of the race have taught the principle of equality among the human race. Even Jesus told the rich man to sell all he had and give it to the poor. This type of teaching has been misinterpreted by many into the idea that the rich and even moderately successful are evil, and we must remove their money by force and give it to the poor.

Many are deceived into supporting the Robin Hood idea of stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. What they do not realize is that this system evolves into taxing everyone including the poor, and giving to the rich. For instance who is hurt the most by the gasoline, cigarette and alcohol taxes - a large source of revenues? The poor. Who benefits? Mostly, the well-to-do.

Question:

So if it is not right to force equality through a mandated redistribution of the wealth, then how will equality ever be achieved? Keep in mind we are not talking about exact equality here, but a general atmosphere of living where all have equal opportunity for wealth. This would be a system where all who are willing to work would have their basic needs met.