Are income taxes just?

[Nihil Obstat]

Are you familiar with what Leo XIII had to say on the subject of unjust governments or governments which act unjustly?

[Ice_nine]

I'm not. Did he say violent overthrow was acceptable in that instance?

[Nihil Obstat]

I'm not. Did he say violent overthrow was acceptable in that instance?

Not quite. I actually was hoping someone might be familiar with the relevant sections, because I am not looking forward to digging it up later this evening.

[Credo in Deum]

I say dig it up.  I like Leo XIII and wouldn't mind reading it.  You could also just name the encyclical and I will add it to my Sunday Spiritual reading.

Edited August 29, 2015 by Credo in Deum

[Nihil Obstat]

Will do. Hopefully I will have something to post tonight. It is most likely Immortale Dei or Diuturnum, but I may be misremembering significantly.

[Nihil Obstat]

So, just as an initial observation, Leo (in Diuturnum) emphatically rejects social contract theory. Authority does not come from the people, or from the consent of the governed.

5. Indeed, very many men of more recent times, walking in the footsteps of those who in a former age assumed to themselves the name of philosophers,(2) say that all power comes from the people; so that those who exercise it in the State do so not as their own, but as delegated to them by the people, and that, by this rule, it can be revoked by the will of the very people by whom it was delegated. But from these, Catholics dissent, who affirm that the right to rule is from God, as from a natural and necessary principle.

6. It is of importance, however, to remark in this place that those who may be placed over the State may in certain cases be chosen by the will and decision of the multitude, without opposition to or impugning of the Catholic doctrine. And by this choice, in truth, the ruler is designated, but the rights of ruling are not thereby conferred. Nor is the authority delegated to him, but the person by whom it is to be exercised is determined upon.

7. There is no question here respecting forms of government, for there is no reason why the Church should not approve of the chief power being held by one man or by more, provided only it be just, and that it tend to the common advantage. Wherefore, so long as justice be respected, the people are not hindered from choosing for themselves that form of government which suits best either their own disposition, or the institutions and customs of their ancestors.(3)

8. But, as regards political power, the Church rightly teaches that it comes from God, for it finds this clearly testified in the sacred Scriptures and in the monuments of antiquity; besides, no other doctrine can be conceived which is more agreeable to reason, or more in accord with the safety of both princes and peoples.

 

12. Those who believe civil society to have risen from the free consent of men, looking for the origin of its authority from the same source, say that each individual has given up something of his right,(15) and that voluntarily every person has put himself into the power of the one man in whose person the whole of those rights has been centered. But it is a great error not to see, what is manifest, that men, as they are not a nomad race, have been created, without their own free will, for a natural community of life. It is plain, moreover, that the pact which they allege is openly a falsehood and a fiction, and that it has no authority to confer on political power such great force, dignity, and firmness as the safety of the State and the common good of the citizens require. Then only will the government have all those ornaments and guarantees, when it is understood to emanate from God as its august and most sacred source.

 

I would argue that Leo also establishes the State as being a natural good, and actually willed - not merely permitted - by God. That is, to have and to submit to a State is a positive good, and the lack of a State is an evil.

He states next that, while as Catholics we refuse to obey that which is evil, the mere existence of evil within the State does not thereby allow us to refuse obedience to those parts which are naturally good and proper to the State. I will just post a long portion here. Skim as you will, but it's a worthwhile read.

 

15. The one only reason which men have for not obeying is when anything is demanded of them which is openly repugnant to the natural or the divine law, for it is equally unlawful to command to do anything in which the law of nature or the will of God is violated. If, therefore, it should happen to any one to be compelled to prefer one or the other, viz., to disregard either the commands of God or those of rulers, he must obey Jesus Christ, who commands us to "give to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's,"(18) and must reply courageously after the example of the Apostles: "We ought to obey God rather than men."(19) And yet there is no reason why those who so behave themselves should be accused of refusing obedience; for, if the will of rulers is opposed to the will and the laws of God, they themselves exceed the bounds of their own power and pervert justice; nor can their authority then be valid, which, when there is no justice, is null.

16. But in order that justice may be retained in government it is of the highest importance that those who rule States should understand that political power was not created for the advantage of any private individual; and that the administration of the State must be carried on to the profit of those who have been committed to their care, not to the profit of those to whom it has been committed. Let princes take example from the Most High God, by whom authority is given to them; and, placing before themselves His model in governing the State, let them rule over the people with equity and faithfulness, and let them add to that severity, which is necessary, a paternal charity. On this account they are warned in the oracles of the sacred Scriptures, that they will have themselves some day to render an account to the King of kings and Lord of lords; if they shall fail in their duty, that it will not be possible for them in any way to escape the severity of God: "The Most High will examine your work and search out your thoughts: because being ministers of his kingdom you have not judged rightly. . . Horribly and speedily will he appear to you, for a most severe judgement shall be for them that bear rule. . . For God will not accept any man's person, neither will he stand in awe of any man's greatness; for he made the little and the great, and he hath equally care of all. But a greater punishment is ready for the more mighty."(20)

17. And if these precepts protect the State, all cause or desire for seditions is removed; the honor and security of rulers, the quiet and wellbeing of societies will be secure. The dignity also of the citizen is best provided for; for to them it has been permitted to retain even in obedience that greatness which conduces to the excellence of man. For they understand that, in the judgment of God, there is neither slave nor free man; that there is one Lord of all, rich "to all that call upon Him,"(21) but that they on this account submit to and obey their rulers, because these in a certain sort bring before them the image of God, "whom to serve is to reign."

18. But the Church has always so acted that the Christian form of civil government may not dwell in the minds of men, but that it may be exhibited also in the life and habits of nations. As long as there were at the helm of the States pagan emperors, who were prevented by superstition from rising to that form of imperial government which We have sketched, she studied how to instill into the minds of subjects, immediately on their embracing the Christian institutions, the teaching that they must be desirous of bringing their lives into conformity with them. Therefore, the pastors of souls, after the example of the Apostle Paul, were accustomed to teach the people with the utmost care and diligence "to be subject to princes and powers, to obey at a word,"(22) and to pray God for all men and particularly "for kings and all that are in a high station: for this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour."(23) And the Christians of old left the most striking proofs of this; for, when they were harassed in a very unjust and cruel way by pagan emperors, they nevertheless at no time omitted to conduct themselves obediently and submissively, so that, in fact, they seemed to vie with each other: those in cruelty, and these in obedience.

19. This great modesty, this fixed determination to obey, was so well known that it could not be obscured by the calumny and malice of enemies. On this account, those who were going to plead in public before the emperors for any persons bearing the Christian name proved by this argument especially that it was unjust to enact laws against the Christians because they were in the sight of all men exemplary in their bearing according to the laws. Athenagoras thus confidently addresses Marcus Aurelius Antoninus and Lucius Aurelius Commodus, his son: "You allow us, who commit no evil, yea, who demean ourselves the most piously and justly of all toward God and likewise toward your government, to be driven about, plundered and exiled."(24) In like manner, Tertullian openly praises the Christians because they were the best and surest friends of all to the Empire: "The Christian is the enemy of no one, much less of the emperor, whom he knows to be appointed by God, and whom he must, therefore, of necessity love, reverence and honor, and wish to be preserved together with the whole Roman Empire."(25) Nor did he hesitate to affirm that, within the limits of the Empire, the number of enemies was wont to diminish just in proportion as the number of Christians increased.(26) There is also a remarkable testimony to the same point in the Epistle to Diognetus, which confirms the statement that the Christians at that period were not only in the habit of obeying the laws, but in every office they of their own accord did more, and more perfectly, than they were required to do by the laws. "Christians observe these things which have obtained the sanction of the law, and in the character of their lives they even go beyond the law."(27)

20. The case, indeed, was different when they were ordered by the edicts of emperors and the threats of praetors to abandon the Christian faith or in any way fail in their duty. At these times, undoubtedly, they preferred to displease men rather than God. Yet, even under these circumstances, they were so far from doing anything seditious or despising the imperial majesty that they took it on themselves only to profess themselves Christians, and declare that they would not in any way alter their faith. But they had no thought of resistance, calmly and joyfully they went to the torture of the rack, in so much that the magnitude of the torments gave place to their magnitude of mind. During the same period the force of Christian principles was observed in like manner in the army. For it was a mark of a Christian soldier to combine the greatest fortitude with the greatest attention to military discipline, and to add to nobility of mind immovable fidelity towards his prince. But, if anything dishonorable was required of him, as, for instance, to break the laws of God, or to turn his sword against innocent disciples of Christ, then, indeed, he refused to execute the orders, yet in such wise that he would rather retire from the army and die for his religion than oppose the public authority by means of sedition and tumult.

21. But afterward, when Christian rulers were at the head of States, the Church insisted much more on testifying and preaching how much sanctity was inherent in the authority of rulers. Hence, when people thought of princedom, the image of a certain sacred majesty would present itself to their minds, by which they would be impelled to greater reverence and love of rulers. And on this account she wisely provides that kings should commence their reign with the celebration of solemn rites; which, in the Old Testament, was appointed by divine authority.(28)

 

Quoting also from Immortale Dei:

5. They, therefore, who rule should rule with evenhanded justice, not as masters, but rather as fathers, for the rule of God over man is most just, and is tempered always with a father's kindness. Government should, moreover, be administered for the well-being of the citizens, because they who govern others possess authority solely for the welfare of the State. Furthermore, the civil power must not be subservient to the advantage of any one individual or of some few persons, inasmuch as it was established for the common good of all. But, if those who are in authority rule unjustly, if they govern overbearingly or arrogantly, and if their measures prove hurtful to the people, they must remember that the Almighty will one day bring them to account, the more strictly in proportion to the sacredness of their office and preeminence of their dignity. "The mighty shall be mightily tormented."(2) Then, truly, will the majesty of the law meet with the dutiful and willing homage of the people, when they are convinced that their rulers hold authority from God, and feel that it is a matter of justice and duty to obey them, and to show them reverence and fealty, united to a love not unlike that which children show their parents. "Let every soul be subject to higher powers."(3) To despise legitimate authority, in whomsoever vested, is unlawful, as a rebellion against the divine will, and whoever resists that, rushes willfully to destruction. "He that resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God, and they that resist, purchase to themselves damnation."(4) To cast aside obedience, and by popular violence to incite to revolt, is therefore treason, not against man only, but against God.

 

 

Hopping back to Diuturnum for a moment, I think that Catholic social teaching, and specifically Leo XIII do specifically claim that the modern state is at least typically "legitimate". Emphasis is mine.

 

26. The Church of Christ, indeed, cannot be an object of suspicion to rulers, nor of hatred to the people; for it urges rulers to follow justice, and in nothing to decline from their duty; while at the same time it strengthens and in many ways supports their authority. All things that are of a civil nature the Church acknowledges and declares to be under the power and authority of the ruler; and in things whereof for different reasons the decision belongs both to the sacred and to the civil power, the Church wishes that there should be harmony between the two so that injurious contests may be avoided. As to what regards the people, the Church has been established for the salvation of all men and has ever loved them as a mother. For it is the Church which by the exercise of her charity has given gentleness to the minds of men, kindness to their manners, and justice to their laws. Never opposed to honest liberty, the Church has always detested a tyrant's rule. This custom which the Church has ever had of deserving well of mankind is notably expressed by St. Augustine when he says that "the Church teaches kings to study the welfare of their people, and people to submit to their kings, showing what is due to all: and that to all is due charity and to no one injustice."(32)

 

The legitimacy comes from God, not man, and given that legitimate rule is a natural good - a natural process - it does not need our consent, or even really our understanding.

Back to Immortale Dei:

 

13. The Almighty, therefore, has given the charge of the human race to two powers, the ecclesiastical and the civil, the one being set over divine, and the other over human, things. Each in its kind is supreme, each has fixed limits within which it is contained, limits which are defined by the nature and special object of the province of each, so that there is, we may say, an orbit traced out within which the action of each is brought into play by its own native right. But, inasmuch as each of these two powers has authority over the same subjects, and as it might come to pass that one and the same thing-related differently, but still remaining one and the same thing-might belong to the jurisdiction and determination of both, therefore God, who foresees all things, and who is the author of these two powers, has marked out the course of each in right correlation to the other. "For the powers that are, are ordained of God."!(17) Were this not so, deplorable contentions and conflicts would often arise, and, not infrequently, men, like travellers at the meeting of two roads, would hesitate in anxiety and doubt, not knowing what course to follow. Two powers would be commanding contrary things, and it would be a dereliction of duty to disobey either of the two.

 

 

18. In political affairs, and all matters civil, the laws aim at securing the common good, and are not framed according to the delusive caprices and opinions of the mass of the people, but by truth and by justice; the ruling powers are invested with a sacredness more than human, and are withheld from deviating from the path of duty, and from overstepping the bounds of rightful authority; and the obedience is not the servitude of man to man, but submission to the will of God, exercising His sovereignty through the medium of men. Now, this being recognized as undeniable, it is felt that the high office of rulers should be held in respect; that public authority should be constantly and faithfully obeyed; that no act of sedition should be committed; and that the civic order of the commonwealth should be maintained as sacred.

19. So, also, as to the duties of each one toward his fellow men, mutual forbearance, kindliness, generosity are placed in the ascendant; the man who is at once a citizen and a Christian is not drawn aside by conflicting obligations; and, lastly, the abundant benefits with which the Christian religion, of its very nature, endows even the mortal life of man are acquired for the community and civil society. And this to such an extent that it may be said in sober truth: "The condition of the commonwealth depends on the religion with which God is worshipped; and between one and the other there exists an intimate and abiding connection."(18)

 

 

..

 

Basically, to wrap things up, yes the current state of affairs in most of the developed world is horrific. Yes, every single modern State must be converted to the social reign of Christ the King. Yes, the Church possesses great civil authority and rights in the public sphere - superior to the State - which are currently denied by modern governments. However, all that being the case, the existence of these governments is still willed by God and is still a natural good, and if and when modern governments do legitimately work towards the common good - and certainly in some, even many circumstances they do - they do so with full authority, as is just. When they act as they ought, they do so justly. When they act unjustly they must be opposed, and when injustice is endemic they must be reformed, but to reject them wholesale, to deny their legitimacy, is in my opinion not permitted to the faithful Catholic. I once believed it was, and I do no longer. 

 

44. Furthermore, it is in general fitting and salutary that Catholics should extend their efforts beyond this restricted sphere, and give their attention to national politics. We say "in general" because these Our precepts are addressed to all nations. However, it may in some places be true that, for most urgent and just reasons, it is by no means expedient for Catholics to engage in public affairs or to take an active part in politics. Nevertheless, as We have laid down, to take no share in public matters would be as wrong as to have no concern for, or to bestow no labour upon, the common good, and the more so because Catholics are admonished, by the very doctrines which they profess, to be upright and faithful in the discharge of duty, while, if they hold aloof, men whose principles offer but small guarantee for the welfare of the State will the more readily seize the reins of government. This would tend also to the injury of the Christian religion, forasmuch as those would come into power who are badly disposed toward the Church, and those who are willing to befriend her would be deprived of all influence.

45. It follows clearly, therefore, that Catholics have just reasons for taking part in the conduct of public affairs. For in so doing they assume not nor should they assume the responsibility of approving what is blameworthy in the actual methods of government, but seek to turn these very methods, so far as is possible, to the genuine and true public good, and to use their best endeavours at the same time to infuse, as it were, into all the veins of the State the healthy sap and blood of Christian wisdom and virtue. The morals and ambitions of the heathens differed widely from those of the Gospel, yet Christians were to be seen living undefiled everywhere in the midst of pagan superstition, and, while always true to themselves, coming to the front boldly wherever an opening was presented. Models of loyalty to their rulers, submissive, so far as was permitted, to the sovereign power, they shed around them on every side a halo of sanctity; they strove to be helpful to their brethren, and to attract others to the wisdom of Jesus Christ, yet were bravely ready to withdraw from public life, nay, even to lay down their life, if they could not without loss of virtue retain honours, dignities, and offices. For this reason, Christian ways and manners speedily found their way not only into private houses but into the camp, the senate, and even into the imperial palaces. "We are but of yesterday," wrote Tertullian, "yet we swarm in all your institutions, we crowd your cities, islands, villages, towns, assemblies, the army itself, your wards and corporations, the palace, the senate, and the law courts."(26) So that the Christian faith, when once it became lawful to make public profession of the Gospel, appeared in most of the cities of Europe, not like an infant crying in its cradle, but already grown up and full of vigour.

 

[Ice_nine]

Thanks Nihil, I read some and I'll try to read the rest later.

I'm curious as to how a government becomes legitimate. I know it's an old libertarian trope but what is the precise difference between the mafia imposing protection fees upon businesses and the government imposing taxes? Is it their scope of power? Their openness with their power? The acquiescence of the majority? Does power=authority? Is ISIS therefore a legitimate government? (many violent terrorist groups provide healthcare, protection, education and other benefits to people that they decide not to maim and kill).

However I think my question centers around what right a man has to the fruits of his labor, and whether the state can justly supercede these rights. Civilizations, including the great American Empire, has survived long stretches of time without an income tax, so it's not a given necessary evil. I was more interested in what the church had to say about that.

 

I just wish I could choose where 1/4 of my pathetic income went instead of feeding back into a corrupt system. :'(

[puellapaschalis]

    I just wish I could choose where 1/4 of my pathetic income went instead of feeding back into a corrupt system. :'(

 I hear you.

[Winchester]

I would have voted but I hit the "view results" option and this voided my vote.  Anyway, I say No. Currently in the USA our country is run by corporations and my tax dollars are being used to fund a country who's government operates under ideals which are contrary to what our founding Fathers wanted: taxation without representation.  Sure we have the illusion of representation, however, the reality is if I'm not a corporation that can pay for lobbiests then my vote means absolutely nothing regarding laws and policies which will impact my life.  

Im being forced to pay income tax to support a foreign government, the United Corporations of America.  

 

Government is a corporation. The federal government as conceived under the constitution was sold as a limited creature made by contract. That contract was violated very early on, and has always colluded with other corporations. There is nothing special about people who claim a right of rule. A thief claims a right of rule, too.

 

The modern state claims it makes law. It claims it is the sole reviewer of its behavior. It enjoys a total monopoly, with disputes settled only within its ruling class. It does not even pretend to be bound by custom or the terms of its contracts.The Church has not addressed the modern state. It hasn't caught up to the changes wrought as legal positivism rose up. Leo is talking about dinosaurs.

[Credo in Deum]

Thanks for digging those up @Nihil Obstat

Do you believe a corrupt government is opposed to the will of God?

If yes then do you believe a citizen who disobeys said government is acting unjustly? Especially when this citizen is not asking for the removal of government as a whole but for the reforming of his/hers current government to the principals of its founding fathers who believed that a nation and its heads of state are to be under God and serve the people for the common good.

Do you think it is unjust for a government who holds itself above God to require its citizens to fund its ideals and form of governance? 

 

[Nihil Obstat]

Thanks for digging those up @Nihil Obstat

Do you believe a corrupt government is opposed to the will of God?

If yes then do you believe a citizen who disobeys said government is acting unjustly? Especially when this citizen is not asking for the removal of government as a whole but for the reforming of his/hers current government to the principals of its founding fathers who believed that a nation and its heads of state are to be under God and serve the people for the common good.

Do you think it is unjust for a government who holds itself above God to require its citizens to fund its ideals and form of governance? 

 

Well, when a government acts unjustly it ought to be disobeyed. But, simply acting unjustly does not make the government itself unjust per se. I would say such a government ought to be reformed by those Catholics who have the ability to do so, even vastly reforming it. I am not sure there is much room at all within Catholic social teaching for actual revolution.

But again, from my readings on this matter, I understand it this way. Even if governments today are often and severely opposed to the will of God, if and when they do fulfil those functions which are legitimate, they do so justly. If a government gives food to the hungry, we are obligated to obey them - notwithstanding that we might believe there are more economically efficient ways to feed the hungry. Economic mistakes are not sinful.

Leo specifically claims that Christians were right to obey the Roman emperors, even as they refused to worship its idols. That was a clear case of a government holding itself above God. But I think even in such cases, obedience to its lawful and natural authority remains a positive good.

[Credo in Deum]

Well, when a government acts unjustly it ought to be disobeyed. But, simply acting unjustly does not make the government itself unjust per se. I would say such a government ought to be reformed by those Catholics who have the ability to do so, even vastly reforming it. I am not sure there is much room at all within Catholic social teaching for actual revolution.

But again, from my readings on this matter, I understand it this way. Even if governments today are often and severely opposed to the will of God, if and when they do fulfil those functions which are legitimate, they do so justly. If a government gives food to the hungry, we are obligated to obey them - notwithstanding that we might believe there are more economically efficient ways to feed the hungry. Economic mistakes are not sinful.

Leo specifically claims that Christians were right to obey the Roman emperors, even as they refused to worship its idols. That was a clear case of a government holding itself above God. But I think even in such cases, obedience to its lawful and natural authority remains a positive good.

Correct, he did say they were right to obey the civil  laws and the civil authorities provided they did not conflict with God's law.  However, by saying this he was not saying that Emperors belief that they were gods was correct, but that the form of Governemnt they operated in, the Republic, was not a bad thing in itself and should not be opposed since it is not evil in and of itself since it still allows for the ability of the government to rule justly over its people and the possibility of its own reform if it tried to deviate from that mission.   

But what if the government moves from a form of government which allowes justice and the potential for it to exist, like a democracy, to a form of government that does not, like a dictatorship?  Would such a government still be considered a legitimate government?  Could we claim that such a government was ordained by God and therefore worthy of obedience, or would we claim that such a government was permitted by God, but is still one we can validly oppose?  

[Nihil Obstat]

 

Correct, he did say they were right to obey the civil  laws and the civil authorities provided they did not conflict with God's law.  However, by saying this he was not saying that Emperors belief that they were gods was correct, but that the form of Governemnt they operated in, the Republic, was not a bad thing in itself and should not be opposed since it is not evil in and of itself since it still allows for the ability of the government to rule justly over its people and the possibility of its own reform if it tried to deviate from that mission.   

But what if the government moves from a form of government which allowes justice and the potential for it to exist, like a democracy, to a form of government that does not, like a dictatorship?  Would such a government still be considered a legitimate government?  Could we claim that such a government was ordained by God and therefore worthy of obedience, or would we claim that such a government was permitted by God, but is still one we can validly oppose?  

It would be a tricky question. Leo made a point of saying - more than once - that many different forms of government are essentially permissible. I think it would have to depend on specifics. Opposing Hitler's Third Reich, probably safe. But I do not think that would ever be an easy question to answer.