In college, I took an introductory course on macroeconomics. One principle of this behavioral science is:
If you want less of something, tax it.
An example that comes to mind quickly is cigarettes. If the government feels if you are going to ignore the surgeon general’s warning anyway, it will discourage you from buying cigarettes by artificially inflating the price thereof through a tax. Whether this is an effective means of getting people to stop smoking is not terribly important to the topic at hand. The idea is simply that:
People will generally act in their own self interest. If the price of something goes up, all other things being equal, they will most likely buy less of it.
One might think, “Oh, that’s nice of Uncle Sam to want people to be healthier.” The flip side of that, however, is that Uncle Sam is profiteering off of behavior it doesn’t want to encourage. Let’s leave cigarettes for the time being however, as I’m really more interested in the big taxes: income tax, property tax, and sales tax.
Taxation: What is taxed?
If the premise is true (if you want less of something, tax it), then what does Uncle Sam want when he imposes an income tax? Quite simply, he wants to encourage you to make less money! What does he want when he imposes a property tax? He you to have less property! What does he want when he imposes a sales tax? He wants you to own fewer possessions!
Is making less money, owning less property, and having fewer possessions the Founders’ idea of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”? Perhaps it is Marx’s idea of liberty…but liberty wasn’t really a big communist talking point, was it?
Why are there taxes?
Taxes are necessary to fund the legitimate activities of government. Under our Constitution, the legitimate activities of the federal government are explicitly laid out. Among its legitimate activities is the mandate to provide for the common defense (such as protecting our borders). As it would be difficult for each citizen to defend the nation on his own, there is provision made for the common defense. It is not enough to have a directive for common defense; there must sufficient funding to actually achieve a common defense. As each citizen obtains a measure of the common defense, each citizen contributes–through a tax–to the funding of the common defense.
Most government activities are supposed to occur at the state level; in fact, the federal government is supposed to have only those powers expressly granted it by the Constitution (see the 10th amendment). The problem today is that the federal government has well exceeded its constitutional mandate to become an enormous behemoth trying to regulate every aspect of our lives. And that requires money–a lot of money, a lot more money than its constitutional mandate would require. Yet in spite of its astronomical revenues, the federal government cannot live within its means. (Ironically, the federal government doesn’t do a very good job defending our borders anymore, especially our southern border.)
Socially-minded folks will object that we need the government to take care of the poor (it’s for the children, after all). I respond, “No, we don’t.” Note that I did not say we don’t need to take care of the poor. I said we do not need the government taking care of the poor.
Taxation vs. Charity
What happens when we use taxation to take care of the poor? Let’s walk through the steps here. First, there is the process of extracting the money from the American taxpayer. This is done by employing the IRS, an enormous bureaucratic institution that effectively holds a gun to each and every taxpayer’s head saying, “pay up, or else.” The money is extracted, but is there any charity in this on anyone’s part? Remember, charity is willing the good of another. The IRS does not will good for you by taking your money. Likewise, you do not will good for another by paying taxes; you are simply trying to avoid a greater evil being perpetrated against you than having you money taken.
What happens to the money next. Well…some of it goes to pay the salaries of the people who stole your money. Had you been left free to be charitable, that money could have gone to the poor (and the edifying effect of charity actually realized). The remainder, then, gets funneled through even more bureaucratic offices (being reduced along the way). These other offices then decide who to give your money to based on their criteria. If you are on the receiving end of these funds, then you know the hoops you must jump through to qualify for this or that. Sometimes, it is more profitable–if you are poor–to be immoral. For example, an unwed mother with children could get more from the government than she would if she married her children’s father.
Who benefits from taxation? Politicians and political parties. They remain in power by bribing net government recipients with the money of net government donors (taxpayers). Those who receive funds exceed in numbers those who pay, even though all vote in equal measure. (Taxation without representation, anyone?) Going back to our taxation principle (now in reverse), the government reinforces the behavior of the poor by giving them money specifically because they are poor. It isn’t only the poor who are involved, however. There is also crony capitalists who receive political favors from politicians who control tax revenues…but I digress…a bit.
What happens when taking care of the poor is not a function of government? I would presume that function would revert back to the churches, which have been (and continue to be) the most effective force for charity in our country’s history. Not only are churches much more efficient than the post office (another triumph of the federal government). More importantly, they are actually charitable. People are free to wish the good of another when they help the poor freely through the private sector. People who receive of the charity of others can have a genuine heart of thanks rather than one of entitlement.
Taxation as a Triumph of the Devil
The tax situation in our country is truly a triumph of the devil because it utterly lacks charity. The devil is not opposed to improving the temporal lives of the poor. The “prince of this world” has lots of money. He is opposed to charity. God is Charity (Deus est Caritas). The devil hates God. Therefore the devil hates charity.
Lest you think that your taxes are charitable donations (or have anything to do with charity at all), consider the words of St. Paul (1 Corinthians 13:1-8):
If I speak with the tongues of men, and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. And if I should have prophecy and should know all mysteries, and all knowledge, and if I should have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. And if I should distribute all my goods to feed the poor, and if I should deliver my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing. Charity is patient, is kind: charity envieth not, dealeth not perversely; is not puffed up; Is not ambitious, seeketh not her own, is not provoked to anger, thinketh no evil; Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth with the truth; Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things. Charity never falleth away: whether prophecies shall be made void, or tongues shall cease, or knowledge shall be destroyed.