Creating an indeal world - taxes and subsidies

[Norm d'Plume]

Hi. This is one in a group of questions I have related to a sci-fi book I'm writing that includes an ideal conservative Christian world called New Bethlehem. For more information about the book, please see my original thread here:http://www.christianforums.com/threads/creating-an-ideal-world-for-conservative-christians.7890296/

Should the rich be required to pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes? Should the working poor have to pay any taxes (e.g., for social security and unemployment insurance), or should all tax income come solely from the middle class and the wealthy?

Should the government provide subsidies using tax dollars for important industries? Modern examples include big oil vs. solar power. Future examples may include genetic engineering, biotechnology, and nanotechnology.

Should the government provide subsidies to farmers in years with bad crop yields to keep them operational?

One man's subsidies are another man's pork. Also, subsidies have a habit of becoming permanent as politicians seek to be re-elected.

Thanks.
Norm

 

[Resha Caner]

There isn't a "right" answer to your questions. That's why attempts at Shangri-La always fail ... and why, if you propose a "perfect" answer in your story it will be difficult to prevent it from coming across as trite, naive, and flat.

 

[Albion]

This sounds more like a topic for one of the political threads than Conservative Christianity.

 

[Albion]

This sounds more like a topic for one of the political threads than Conservative Christianity.

In fact, a very similar discussion is underway on one dealing with Ayn Rand.

 

[Resha Caner]

This sounds more like a topic for one of the political threads than Conservative Christianity.

I understand your point, and basically agree. But there is a sense in which explaining that conservative politics and conservative Christianity are 2 different things to those who think they are the same thing is a valid topic for this forum. Regardless, if you disagree you can just ignore this thread. I don't know if it's necessary to actually move the conversation.

 

[Albion]

I understand your point, and basically agree. But there is a sense in which explaining that conservative politics and conservative Christianity are 2 different things to those who think they are the same thing is a valid topic for this forum. Regardless, if you disagree you can just ignore this thread. I don't know if it's necessary to actually move the conversation.

I appreciate the point, but I am also aware that this forum has been used mainly for threads about political (or social) Conservatism rather than "Conservative Christianity," although the SOF clearly lays it out for any user. Therefore, I occasionally think this should mentioned, that's all.

 

[Norm d'Plume]

Albion, it probably has to do with the way I worded the question, so allow me to clear it up. It has to do with redistribution of wealth, which is very much a Biblical concept. A key part of my questions is to distinguish what Republicans want from what conservative Christians want. I'm interested in the latter. In the media, they're often treated as one and the same.

Resha, I'm not going to present New Bethlehem as Shangri-La. I'm looking to present a world based on ideal conservative Christian values. That doesn't mean it will be paradise. It will be an imperfect world that strives to maintain those ideals, very much like the Puritans did when they came to America centuries ago to live their lives according to their deeply religious beliefs.

 

[Albion]

Albion, it probably has to do with the way I worded the question, so allow me to clear it up. It has to do with redistribution of wealth, which is very much a Biblical concept.

A forced redistribution is NOT, however, and that's what you are talking about. So, the answer for your book has to be no confiscatory taxation or redistribution for the sake of redistribution because it would not be a Conservative Christian society if it had a Socialistic economy.

 

[Norm d'Plume]

Acts 2:44-45: ‘All that believed were together, and had all things in common; and sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.’

Albion, I believe you're correct that sharing of wealth with others is a voluntary act, at least as far as the above verses are concerned.

Does that mean that all social programs (e.g., universal healthcare, old age pensions, disability pensions, unemployment insurance, etc.) should all be left to the church to implement based on voluntary charity? That's basically the premise I follow in the book in the current draft, where I have "havens" surrounding major churches for the poor to live in and receive church aid.

The planet will be under constant threat of invasion so a massive amount of tax dollars will be spent on defense, leaving as little (or as much) in the way of tax revenue for social programs as I care to define it, based on whatever consensus there is here for capitalism vs. socialism.

Wouldn't a planet with a Christian government want to ensure that there is sufficient aid to the poor, the sick, and the elderly, even if that meant taxes for such programs? Wouldn't it inevitably lead to social programs to aid those in need?

What should be done if there is insufficient charity for those in need? FDR's New Deal created social security, unemployment insurance, and welfare, among other programs, because charity alone simply couldn't deal with the Great Depression.

I could go either way on this. The book will have charity-supported "havens" because they're a key element in the story, but the amount of charity vs. social programs in this society is open to definition.

Thanks.
Norm

 

[Albion]

Acts 2:44-45: ‘All that believed were together, and had all things in common; and sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.’

That a voluntary decision. It has nothing to do with the levy of taxes--which is what you were discussing.

Does that mean that all social programs (e.g., universal healthcare, old age pensions, disability pensions, unemployment insurance, etc.) should all be left to the church to implement based on voluntary charity? That's basically the premise I follow in the book in the current draft, where I have "havens" surrounding major churches for the poor to live in and receive church aid.

Ah, well, this seems to paint an entirely different picture than I picked up from that earlier post. But of course the scenario is unclear when you ask if "all" social programs should be axed. They should not; Conservative Christianity is not automatically supportive of some radically libertarian society. So it matters what we use as terminology or examples.

You said that a "redistribution of the wealth" was very Biblical. It's not, unless you are referring to voluntary giving...and the term is seldom used in that way. Then too, the examples you gave above do not describe "all" social programs or what is called a safety net. By and large they are the more extensive government programs.

The planet will be under constant threat of invasion so a massive amount of tax dollars will be spent on defense, leaving as little (or as much) in the way of tax revenue for social programs as I care to define it, based on whatever consensus there is here for capitalism vs. socialism.

That threat is yours to define, I guess, but I don't think it changes much when it comes to the ethics of Free Enterprise or Socialism.

Wouldn't a planet with a Christian government want to ensure that there is sufficient aid to the poor, the sick, and the elderly, even if that meant taxes for such programs?

As I was saying, SOME taxes for the support of the sick, elderly, and poor would get a thumbs up. To be a Christian living in society is not be to opposed to all government, period. But the level of spending, what the programs are, and the redistribution of the wealth for its own sake go much beyond that.

What should be done if there is insufficient charity for those in need?

Is there insufficient charity for those in need? Would there be, if the tax burden for all government spending were less? Some studies suggest that there would be--but not if approximately 50% of one's income were taken off the top by government. And that's where we are now.

 

[Norm d'Plume]

Thanks again, Albion.

Are there any major programs you suggest be eliminated from government-funding to make a significant dent in entitlement spending? I'd be interested to know where you would draw the distinction between government programs, charity, and self-reliance. On that last one, I made the assumption in my latest draft that New Bethlehem expects a very healthy dose of self-reliance. If you're able-bodied and want to eat, you work. Of course, that assumes there are jobs available.

As for social program spending in general, defense spending will be so extraordinary because of New Bethlehem's strategic importance in the galaxy, that there will be little left over for government "anything", hence the need for self-reliance and charity. If I remember correctly, the U.S. spent 90% of its budget during WWII on the war itself.

Just to clarify, there would be no redistribution of wealth for its own sake. Are there modern programs that you consider a form of redistribution?

Thanks.
Norm

 

[Viren]

You would have to include the jubilee year of canceling debts and the redistribution of land.