-------------------------
(Now that Dr. Carson has risen up in the polls, the Left's cannon fire turns towards him. That's what the Left does, doubly so to Republican people of color. They cannot permit a smart, accomplished, educated black to be honored or respected, because their entire world view rests on the idea that the only hope for blacks is with them.
So now the Left is going to tell us what the Bible really says, because they really believe it and all. And as everyone knows, they're expert theologians.)
We need a significantly changed taxation system. And the one that I've advocated is based on tithing, because I think God is a pretty fair Guy. And He said, you know, if you give me a tithe, it doesn't matter how much you make. If you've had a bumper crop, you don't owe Me triple tithes. And if you've had no crops at all, you don't owe Me no tithes. So, there must be something inherently fair about that. And that's why I've advocated a proportional tax system. You make $10 billion, you pay a billion. You make $10, you pay one. And everybody gets treated the same way. And you get rid of the deductions, you get rid of all the loopholes.
Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson recently proposed a tax system “based on tithing, because I think God is a pretty fair guy.” The basic idea is that people would pay a set percent of their income in taxes, and most of the federal tax code’s current deductions and loopholes would be closed. Carson suggests that such a system is inherently fair and simple, and he’s tasked Thomas Rustici, an economics professor at George Mason University, with working out the details. During Wednesday night’s debate among the Republican primary candidates in Boulder, Colorado, Carson noted that his ideal rate might not be the biblically mandated 10 percent, but something closer to 15 percent.
Looking to the Bible for guidance on tax policy raises a host of questions, not the least of which is whether we should be turning to an ancient document (There we have it. The author doesn't believe the Bible to be relevant in any way, but he is happy to tell us what it really means.)
to design a secular tax system for our modern world. (Let me translate: "The idea of a flat tax, no matter the source, scares us because we lose the ability to tinker with peoples' finances." Oh, and the "modern world" is code for income redistribution and central planning.)
For the sake of argument, however, let’s accept that we should look to the Bible. That leaves us with the more concrete questions of just what the Bible says about tax fairness and tithing, and whether a tax system based on tithing would be the panacea that Carson suggests. The answer is almost certainly no.
The Bible actually refers to a number of different taxes or tax-like practices that are divinely inspired, including the temple tax, the agricultural tithe, and nonagricultural tithing, the practice of giving 10 percent of one’s income to the poor. (None of these other taxes were the subject of Dr. Carson's comments.)
Each of these reflects a different conception of fairness. For instance, the temple tax, described in the Book of Exodus and mentioned several more times in the Old and New Testaments, requires each male over the age of 20 to pay a half-shekel, regardless of wealth or income. In contrast, tithes, described in Deuteronomy and Leviticus, impose a flat rate, such that each person pays a proportional amount of his or her income. In fact, the Bible refers to two tithes, one to be given to the Levites, temple servants who were excluded from the division of land in Israel, and one either to be given to the poor or taken to Jerusalem and consumed, depending on where in the Hebrews’ seven-year cycle one was. (The author is attempting to enter into a theological discussion that has been going on for centuries, coming down on one side of the debate as if there isn't another side.
In addition, Dr. Carson was giving a theological treaties on the varieties and amounts of Old Testament taxes. In his brief remarks he identifies a concept, that a flat tax appeals to him. He identified the tithe as a biblical "flat tax," which is generally correct, and is most likely from the context of his own church's position, and then made a non-specific statement about God's requirements in contrast to government's insatiable appetite for revenue.)
Ezra the Priest took the tithe away from the Levites when they refused to return to Jerusalem to help build the Second Temple, providing a lesson, perhaps, to a candidate like Carson, that our modern-day welfare recipients shouldn’t bite the hand that feeds them. (A lesson for Dr. Carson? Actually, taking benefits away from an undeserving group sounds more like a conservative idea.)
So which practice accurately reflects God’s notion of fairness? And how do we know that God had fairness in mind when determining the rates for these practices? (What makes the author think that he knows what is on God's mind?)
The temple tax was tied to communal prayer in which each individual atoned for his soul by making payment. Contributing the same amount reflects the notion that we are all equal before God. It can also conduct a census—counting the annual contributions tells you how many people there are.
The fixed rate of the agricultural tithe may reflect the fact that tithes were paid in-kind—that is, in actual produce, not in the money value of that produce. They also had to be separated out before the food could be eaten, which typically meant in the fields. Under such circumstances, progressive rates, in which the wealthier pay at greater rates than the poor, were simply unworkable. First, one would probably need to create different rate structures for different crops. For lightweight crops, the threshold for moving from 10 percent to 15 percent, as Carson suggested, might make sense once farmers had harvested 100 pounds, while a 200 pound threshold might make sense for heavier crops. Second, the accounting necessary to implement a progressive system would have been quite difficult, especially out in the fields. A proportionate tithe made sense because farmers could simply set aside every 10th basket, regardless of the crop or the basket’s size or shape. (None of this is relevant, because Dr. Carson did not address them in his remarks.
But we need to note at this point that what is under discussion here only applies to Jews. Christians are not Jews, so Christians do not follow Hebrew law. However, many churches and denominations believe the tithe is an obligation for believers, mostly because the tithe is mentioned in several places in the New Testament. It is from this faith perspective Dr. Carson speaks, rendering everything else the author is talking about moot.)
The fact is that biblical taxes were religious obligations inextricably linked to their religious purposes, such as supporting the temple attendants and feeding the poor. They were never intended to be a model for a modern, secular tax system. (And Dr. Carson was not suggesting this.)
But let us assume for the moment that Carson has correctly determined that the agricultural tithe reflects the divine notion of tax fairness, even if it does not dictate the actual rate. We must also ignore the fact that the agricultural tithe only applied to agriculture, which would limit our tax to farmers. I’m fairly certain Carson doesn’t mean to do that. Instead, he claims that we should all pay the same percentage, even if it means that the wealthy pay more than the poor. At least it’s less than they would pay under a progressive tax. (The author finally gets on topic, that Dr. Carson "doesn't mean to do that.")
The practice of tithing from nonagricultural income might be the better model, but even here there are problems. This practice is described in the Bible—think Jacob vowing to tithe after dreaming about the ladder full of angels—and was developed in the Mishnah and Talmud, works from the third and sixth centuries that record and elaborate upon purported additional instructions Moses received on Mount Sinai. (Again, this is not relevant to Dr. Carson's statement.)
Early religious authorities struggled with the question of just how much charity one should do and concluded, based on Jacob’s example, that one should set aside 10 percent of one’s income to help the poor. But it wasn’t that simple. Those who actually needed charity were relieved of the obligation, and those with little to give were asked to give something less than 10 percent. However, those with significant assets were actually asked to give more, up to 20 percent of their assets. Thus, far from being a flat tax, as Carson suggests, this practice was actually progressive in nature. (Dr. Carson made a simple statement, that he favored a flat tax. That is apparently beyond the author's comprehension.)
When the U.S. income tax was proposed more than 100 years ago, its proponents sold it as a much simpler alternative to the then-current system of excise taxes and import duties. (Um, no. The first income tax was proposed in 1814, but never installed. The first actual income tax was installed to support the cost of the Civil war in 1862.
And simplicity was never the stated reason. It was always about revenue, and government was and is hungry for revenue.)
We know how that turned out. The reality is that modern tax systems must account for the myriad ways in which people spend and earn money. They often contain complex provisions designed to promote social policies, such as home ownership and economic growth. Finally, they must anticipate the ways in which taxpayers will order their affairs so as to escape as much tax as possible. And if that weren’t enough, they are stuck between the Scylla of political lobbying and the Charybdis of partisan politics. No wonder the tax code reads as if it were written in Hungarian, Google-translated into Mandarin, and then translated again into English—and no wonder Carson would prefer to scrap it and try something more biblical. (Ah, so now Dr. Carson is actually sensible! It is now totally understandable that Dr. Carson would want to simplify the arcane, oppressive, contradictory, and complex income tax system. After paragraph upon paragraph of mocking Dr. Carson, the author concedes he has a point. Wow.)
But would a tax system based on tithes really be easy to administer? I certainly don’t mean to defend our current tax system, on which almost anything would be an improvement. However, the idea that tithing is simple is at best misguided. (Term switching. Dr. Carson did not advocate that people should tithe their taxes. He advocated for a flat tax based on the idea that the tithe is a flat tax.)
Assuming for the moment that the rate is set at 10 percent, the question is 10 percent of what? Let’s start with agricultural tithing. The Bible requires farmers to tithe 10 percent of (1) the produce (2) of the fields (3) of Israel. At first glance, this seems straightforward, but religious scholars have struggled with questions about all three of these terms. What constitutes a field? Is a courtyard a field for purposes of the tithe? How about a root cellar, if your onions start to sprout? What constitutes produce? Is hemp produce subject to the tithe? Finally, what constitutes Israel? The borders changed both in ancient and modern times. And what should one do with a tree that grows in Jordan but shoots a branch over Israeli airspace? Entire sections of the Mishnah and Talmud are devoted to trying to flesh out this simple command. (The author gets increasingly nonsensical. Apparently unable to distinguish between the concept of a flat tax and a literal tithing situation, he goes to ridiculous lengths to attempt to refute a simple statement made by Dr. Carson.
And by the way, the author is a typical Leftist. Parsing meanings, complicating matters, making rules and exceptions, controlling peoples' behaviors with rewards and punishments... that is exactly what Leftists did to the income tax system [and most every part of government, for that matter].)
The problem becomes significantly more complex when dealing with nonagricultural tithing. In determining how much to give, people need to determine their income. Should they be allowed to deduct meals? Should they include gifts in income? If they purchase an asset, may they deduct the cost immediately, must they wait until they sell the asset, or should they be allowed to depreciate the cost over time? What about money earned overseas or in corporate form? Defining income raises a host of difficult questions that can significantly complicate any tax system, regardless of the rate structure. (And the leftist social engineers love this complexity. It makes them feel like they're solving problems. Bureaucrats and lobbyists wrote the existing tax code, not to raise revenue, but to change societal outcomes.)
Not to put too fine a point on it, but while Carson’s tax plan may be divinely inspired, the devil is in the details. (Details were not the point of Dr. Carson's statement. Concepts were. That must be too much for the author to understand.)
Looking to the Bible for guidance on tax policy raises a host of questions, not the least of which is whether we should be turning to an ancient document (There we have it. The author doesn't believe the Bible to be relevant in any way, but he is happy to tell us what it really means.)
to design a secular tax system for our modern world. (Let me translate: "The idea of a flat tax, no matter the source, scares us because we lose the ability to tinker with peoples' finances." Oh, and the "modern world" is code for income redistribution and central planning.)
For the sake of argument, however, let’s accept that we should look to the Bible. That leaves us with the more concrete questions of just what the Bible says about tax fairness and tithing, and whether a tax system based on tithing would be the panacea that Carson suggests. The answer is almost certainly no.
The Bible actually refers to a number of different taxes or tax-like practices that are divinely inspired, including the temple tax, the agricultural tithe, and nonagricultural tithing, the practice of giving 10 percent of one’s income to the poor. (None of these other taxes were the subject of Dr. Carson's comments.)
Each of these reflects a different conception of fairness. For instance, the temple tax, described in the Book of Exodus and mentioned several more times in the Old and New Testaments, requires each male over the age of 20 to pay a half-shekel, regardless of wealth or income. In contrast, tithes, described in Deuteronomy and Leviticus, impose a flat rate, such that each person pays a proportional amount of his or her income. In fact, the Bible refers to two tithes, one to be given to the Levites, temple servants who were excluded from the division of land in Israel, and one either to be given to the poor or taken to Jerusalem and consumed, depending on where in the Hebrews’ seven-year cycle one was. (The author is attempting to enter into a theological discussion that has been going on for centuries, coming down on one side of the debate as if there isn't another side.
In addition, Dr. Carson was giving a theological treaties on the varieties and amounts of Old Testament taxes. In his brief remarks he identifies a concept, that a flat tax appeals to him. He identified the tithe as a biblical "flat tax," which is generally correct, and is most likely from the context of his own church's position, and then made a non-specific statement about God's requirements in contrast to government's insatiable appetite for revenue.)
Ezra the Priest took the tithe away from the Levites when they refused to return to Jerusalem to help build the Second Temple, providing a lesson, perhaps, to a candidate like Carson, that our modern-day welfare recipients shouldn’t bite the hand that feeds them. (A lesson for Dr. Carson? Actually, taking benefits away from an undeserving group sounds more like a conservative idea.)
So which practice accurately reflects God’s notion of fairness? And how do we know that God had fairness in mind when determining the rates for these practices? (What makes the author think that he knows what is on God's mind?)
The temple tax was tied to communal prayer in which each individual atoned for his soul by making payment. Contributing the same amount reflects the notion that we are all equal before God. It can also conduct a census—counting the annual contributions tells you how many people there are.
The fixed rate of the agricultural tithe may reflect the fact that tithes were paid in-kind—that is, in actual produce, not in the money value of that produce. They also had to be separated out before the food could be eaten, which typically meant in the fields. Under such circumstances, progressive rates, in which the wealthier pay at greater rates than the poor, were simply unworkable. First, one would probably need to create different rate structures for different crops. For lightweight crops, the threshold for moving from 10 percent to 15 percent, as Carson suggested, might make sense once farmers had harvested 100 pounds, while a 200 pound threshold might make sense for heavier crops. Second, the accounting necessary to implement a progressive system would have been quite difficult, especially out in the fields. A proportionate tithe made sense because farmers could simply set aside every 10th basket, regardless of the crop or the basket’s size or shape. (None of this is relevant, because Dr. Carson did not address them in his remarks.
But we need to note at this point that what is under discussion here only applies to Jews. Christians are not Jews, so Christians do not follow Hebrew law. However, many churches and denominations believe the tithe is an obligation for believers, mostly because the tithe is mentioned in several places in the New Testament. It is from this faith perspective Dr. Carson speaks, rendering everything else the author is talking about moot.)
The fact is that biblical taxes were religious obligations inextricably linked to their religious purposes, such as supporting the temple attendants and feeding the poor. They were never intended to be a model for a modern, secular tax system. (And Dr. Carson was not suggesting this.)
But let us assume for the moment that Carson has correctly determined that the agricultural tithe reflects the divine notion of tax fairness, even if it does not dictate the actual rate. We must also ignore the fact that the agricultural tithe only applied to agriculture, which would limit our tax to farmers. I’m fairly certain Carson doesn’t mean to do that. Instead, he claims that we should all pay the same percentage, even if it means that the wealthy pay more than the poor. At least it’s less than they would pay under a progressive tax. (The author finally gets on topic, that Dr. Carson "doesn't mean to do that.")
The practice of tithing from nonagricultural income might be the better model, but even here there are problems. This practice is described in the Bible—think Jacob vowing to tithe after dreaming about the ladder full of angels—and was developed in the Mishnah and Talmud, works from the third and sixth centuries that record and elaborate upon purported additional instructions Moses received on Mount Sinai. (Again, this is not relevant to Dr. Carson's statement.)
Early religious authorities struggled with the question of just how much charity one should do and concluded, based on Jacob’s example, that one should set aside 10 percent of one’s income to help the poor. But it wasn’t that simple. Those who actually needed charity were relieved of the obligation, and those with little to give were asked to give something less than 10 percent. However, those with significant assets were actually asked to give more, up to 20 percent of their assets. Thus, far from being a flat tax, as Carson suggests, this practice was actually progressive in nature. (Dr. Carson made a simple statement, that he favored a flat tax. That is apparently beyond the author's comprehension.)
When the U.S. income tax was proposed more than 100 years ago, its proponents sold it as a much simpler alternative to the then-current system of excise taxes and import duties. (Um, no. The first income tax was proposed in 1814, but never installed. The first actual income tax was installed to support the cost of the Civil war in 1862.
And simplicity was never the stated reason. It was always about revenue, and government was and is hungry for revenue.)
We know how that turned out. The reality is that modern tax systems must account for the myriad ways in which people spend and earn money. They often contain complex provisions designed to promote social policies, such as home ownership and economic growth. Finally, they must anticipate the ways in which taxpayers will order their affairs so as to escape as much tax as possible. And if that weren’t enough, they are stuck between the Scylla of political lobbying and the Charybdis of partisan politics. No wonder the tax code reads as if it were written in Hungarian, Google-translated into Mandarin, and then translated again into English—and no wonder Carson would prefer to scrap it and try something more biblical. (Ah, so now Dr. Carson is actually sensible! It is now totally understandable that Dr. Carson would want to simplify the arcane, oppressive, contradictory, and complex income tax system. After paragraph upon paragraph of mocking Dr. Carson, the author concedes he has a point. Wow.)
But would a tax system based on tithes really be easy to administer? I certainly don’t mean to defend our current tax system, on which almost anything would be an improvement. However, the idea that tithing is simple is at best misguided. (Term switching. Dr. Carson did not advocate that people should tithe their taxes. He advocated for a flat tax based on the idea that the tithe is a flat tax.)
Assuming for the moment that the rate is set at 10 percent, the question is 10 percent of what? Let’s start with agricultural tithing. The Bible requires farmers to tithe 10 percent of (1) the produce (2) of the fields (3) of Israel. At first glance, this seems straightforward, but religious scholars have struggled with questions about all three of these terms. What constitutes a field? Is a courtyard a field for purposes of the tithe? How about a root cellar, if your onions start to sprout? What constitutes produce? Is hemp produce subject to the tithe? Finally, what constitutes Israel? The borders changed both in ancient and modern times. And what should one do with a tree that grows in Jordan but shoots a branch over Israeli airspace? Entire sections of the Mishnah and Talmud are devoted to trying to flesh out this simple command. (The author gets increasingly nonsensical. Apparently unable to distinguish between the concept of a flat tax and a literal tithing situation, he goes to ridiculous lengths to attempt to refute a simple statement made by Dr. Carson.
And by the way, the author is a typical Leftist. Parsing meanings, complicating matters, making rules and exceptions, controlling peoples' behaviors with rewards and punishments... that is exactly what Leftists did to the income tax system [and most every part of government, for that matter].)
The problem becomes significantly more complex when dealing with nonagricultural tithing. In determining how much to give, people need to determine their income. Should they be allowed to deduct meals? Should they include gifts in income? If they purchase an asset, may they deduct the cost immediately, must they wait until they sell the asset, or should they be allowed to depreciate the cost over time? What about money earned overseas or in corporate form? Defining income raises a host of difficult questions that can significantly complicate any tax system, regardless of the rate structure. (And the leftist social engineers love this complexity. It makes them feel like they're solving problems. Bureaucrats and lobbyists wrote the existing tax code, not to raise revenue, but to change societal outcomes.)
Not to put too fine a point on it, but while Carson’s tax plan may be divinely inspired, the devil is in the details. (Details were not the point of Dr. Carson's statement. Concepts were. That must be too much for the author to understand.)
No comments:
Post a Comment