TITHING VS. TAXATION
The purpose of this essay is to assess the difference between taxation by governments, and the Lord's law of tithing as implemented by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The essay mainly focuses upon the erroneous, and inappropriate system of taxation currently existent in the United States of America in reference to both just principles and evident effects of such adulteration of constitutional statutes. The arguments presented are in response to a current debate taking place in a Sociology class at BYU which you can visit and contribute to at http://themsociologists.blogspot.com/.
THE PROPER ROLE OF GOVERNMENT
Lance, you proposed “ that by being citizens of a country, don’t we implicitly consent to allow the government the power to spend money where it thinks is best?” What a frightening thought! Couldn’t a similar argument be made for an individual’s consent to any policy or action of Government? Does my citizenship, which is largely an accident of my birth, imply that I somehow consent to the decision of Roe vs. Wade, to unjustified war, or to the many gross iniquities which have resulted from abuses by Government? Did those living in Nazi Germany implicitly consent to allow the government to do what it felt was best?
It was Thomas Jefferson who stated in the Declaration of Independence that Government derives “its just powers from the consent of the governed.” President Ezra Taft Benson argued that the government therefore, “becomes primarily a mechanism for defense against bodily harm, theft and involuntary servitude. It cannot claim the power to redistribute the wealth or force reluctant citizens to perform acts of charity against their will. Government is created by man. No man possesses such power to delegate. The creature cannot exceed the creator. “ The very basic fact of the matter is, the Government does not have the right to exercise any power that any individual member of society does not have the ability to exercise in the absence of government.
The economist Frederic Bastiat explained this premise for the proper role and justification for the existence of governments when he declared,
"Each of us has a natural right - from God - to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties?
If every person has the right to defend - even by force - his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right --its reason for existing, its lawfulness -- is based on individual right (The Law, p.6).”
One would not be reluctant to accept the premise that if an individual holds his neighbor at gunpoint and demands he surrender a portion of his income, he would be promptly arrested as a criminal, regardless of the nobility of his promise to use the loot to help others. However, we quickly disregard such principles in defending the exorbitant activities of Government, a group of people in theory “hired” by “we the people”, whose greatest and most just responsibility is to protect the very wealth they “legally plunder.”
I believe the illustrative observation of William Graham Sumner relates this sociological issue to that of liberty most effectively. He said,:
The type and formula of most schemes of philanthropy or humanitarianism is this: A and B put their heads together to decide what C shall be made to do for D. The radical vice of all these schemes, from a sociological point of view, is that C is not allowed a voice in the matter, and his position, character, and interests, as well as the ultimate effects on society through C’s interests, are entirely overlooked. I call C the forgotten man … They therefore ignore the entire source from which they must draw all the energy which they employ in their remedies, and they ignore all the effects on other members of society than the ones they have in view. They are always under the dominion of the superstition of Government, and forgetting that a government produces nothing at all, they leave out of sight the first fact to remembered in all social discussion- that the state cannot get a cent for any man without taking it from another man, and this latter must be a man who has produced and saved it. This latter is the Forgotten Man.
Taxation is inseparable from mandatory labor. Who would argue that it is ethical, moral, or just for the Government to demand its citizens work approximately one third of the year for foreign countries in need, or to pay someone else’s medical bills, or to subsidize someone else’s mortgage payment? Taxation is the vehicle through which Government forces unpaid labor, for the income of any individual is a direct result and fruit of their own personal labor.
In contrast to the source of Government’s powers, God does not derive his just powers from the consent of His children, but is Himself the supreme author of the “inalienable rights” of man. In pertaining to His Kingdom, He does not govern His children through compulsory means. His children are indeed “free to act, and not to be acted upon.” Tithing is not paid at gunpoint or with threat of legal litigation. Tithing is paid by the individual freely. It was President Gordon B. Hinckley who declared that, “We do not pay tithing with money. We pay tithing with faith.” Our analysis of the resultant effects of tithing ought not to merely focused upon the collective Church and the transparency of the allocation of such sacred funds, but rather on the sacred impact that tithing has upon the individual. What profit does paying tithing have for the individual who’s central motive in willingly imparting of their substance is wonderment concerning what they will get in return? How much greater is the blessing to the individual who voluntarily gives a tenth of their increase because they love their God, and wants to return a small portion of that which God has given them for the benefit and building of His Kingdom?
A similar argument may be made for minimizing the ever increasing taxation of government. Such activity has engendered an attitude of demanding something for nothing. Seldom if any citizens think to themselves while filing their taxes, “Wow. I am so glad the Government is making me help my neighbors out.” Far more will grudgingly wonder, “What will I get in return for what I am being forced to give?” How much greater is the concept of an individual actually becoming a better individual because they wish to help others of their own volition and free enterprise? Excessive government taxation does not make people “good”, but conversely robs them of the decision to do good.
“The world works from the outside in, Christ works from the inside out. The Lord works from the inside out. The world works from the outside in. The world would take people out of the slums. Christ takes the slums out of people, and then they take themselves out of the slums. The world would mold men by changing their environment. Christ changes men, who then change their environment. The world would shape human behavior, but Christ can change human nature.”
Could the same approach of the Gospel of Jesus Christ also be the best course for Government to pursue? Ought we to work from the inside out, rather than the outside in? Ought we to honor the personal liberty of the individual, rather than the outward might of Big Brother? Surely the argument may be made by many that if left to individuals, the naked will go unclothed, and the hungry unfed? However, if this were to happen, it would at least be the fault and responsibility of the people directly and not the fault of an out of control government elected by them. I for one, feel a personal responsibility to serve those in need, without being told to by the Government. I do not believe I am alone in expressing this sentiment.
THE EFFICACY OF TAXATION AS A VEHICLE TO SOCIETAL PROGRESS
Now that we have analyzed the principles, let’s analyze the resultant policies and their efficacy. Lance, you made the argument that individuals are not necessarily charitable by nature. However, a valid argument could be made that people would be more charitable if a third or more of their income wasn’t being taken from them in the name of Government charity. If all government programs were suddenly eliminated, how would you respond? Would you be more or less likely to volunteer at a homeless shelter? Would you be more or less likely to help a sick relative or neighbor pay their medical bills? Would you be more likely to serve others? We aren’t doing these things already because we have been sucked into the destructive logic of a welfare state – that it is someone else’s responsibility – the government. Is this really how much we think of our own personal responsibility as human beings?
Individuals would not have to match the Government funds lost through reduced taxation dollar for dollar, because the private sector is far more effective than the public sector. As much as 70% of welfare budgets have been eaten up by bureaucracy. I am confident that this contrasts with minimal, if any overhead in the processing of tithing funds. Government funded businesses are not as effective as private enterprises because failure often results in the Government giving the program or organization more money to save them from their own negligent extinction. Private individuals have statistically shown a greater and more efficient propensity to serve others than the Government.
For example, the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), an institution created in 1965, received about $ 121 million in government funds for the NEA in 2006, while private donations to the arts totaled $ 2.5 billion. Private donations from Americans to impoverished individuals in lesser developed countries has been estimated to exceed those by the Government by 3 times. The advent of tax funded programs such as Medicaid and Medicare have replaced a health care system that was once the envy of the world, in which pro bono services were given routinely by Doctors, with a highly regulated, and often unaffordable system which now prohibits Doctors from such charitable acts. New York City’s public schools , which educate the majority of the city’s youth is run by 6,000 bureaucrats, while the private Archdiocese of NY, which educates one fifth of the kids in New York City is run by only 26 individuals. The point that I am trying to make with this long laundry list of examples is this: Freedom works! We don’t need to mandate people to do good when it comes to every little need of society. Society is better served through voluntary charity than congested government programs.
Lance, you also made the argument in response to Jeff that we can find where our taxes are being spent if we look hard enough. I’m not so sure about that. Have you ever tried to discover where the government debt ultimately being paid to the federal reserve directly goes to? Furthermore, we currently pay about $1.4 billion a day in interest on the federal debt as Americans. We certainly get nothing for that money. Well, I guess we do get the twisted pleasure of sustaining a Government that is acting without fiscal responsibility. Reduction of taxes ought not to be viewed as a radical concept. In order to completely eradicate the income tax for example, we would have to do nothing more than return our budget to the same spending level exercised by the government all the way back in 1997. Scary thought huh?
The interesting thing about this whole discussion is that it has been based largely upon the premise that taxation helps the poor and needy more than it helps the wealthy. Basic economic theory would point to the fact that excessive government spending often correlates with excessive printing of money, which in turn leads to inflation. Inflation disproportionately has a greater impact on the impoverished than it does on the wealthy. In addition to this fact, many big businesses have been propped up by Government and have supported taxation and regulatory policy that would crush their competitors. Lobbying groups that are most successful in Washington are not often the ones with the greatest cause, but the greatest money.
Finally, the good of society, from an economic perspective, is largely a result of capital output per person. Some mistakenly look to recent American history and attribute a greater poverty level decades ago to a lack of government regulation. However, the bottom line is we didn’t have the capital output that we have today. Public policy can do nothing to bolster economic capacity. Compared to today, the American economy had little capital. According to Dr. Ron Paul,
The only way to increase everyone’s standard of living is by increasing the amount of capital per worker. Additional capital makes workers more productive, which means they can produce more goods than before. When our economy becomes physically capable of producing vastly more goods, their abundance makes them more affordable in terms of dollars. Soaking the rich works for only so long: the rich eventually wise up and decide to hide their income, move away, or stop working so much. But investing in capital makes everyone better off … it is foolish to levy taxes along any step of this process, because doing so sabotages the only way wealth can be created for everyone.
Where is the excessive overhead in tithing? When is the individual tithe payer paying interest on the debt of the Church? When is the payment of tithing mandated by force, or required by compulsory means? Does tithing have any potential negative side effects upon the poor? Is God’s right to command that His covenant children pay tithing different in nature than the right of the Government to take our substance from us by compulsion, a right which no individual member of society possesses? Can any argument be made that tithing funds are not used as effectively as possible, even with divine guidance? The Lord’s eternal system of Tithing is far different both in principle and in outcome, than America’s current corrupt and inefficient system of taxation.
