A commentator on this blog has said:
[T]here is very little Christian theology on the merits, purposes and morality of taxes. There are certainly many mentions in the new Testament of tax collectors/publicans who were widely despised as agents of a foreign state, and ranked alongside “sinners”, which many interpret as lenders at interest, which was clearly against the Law.
St Paul does talk of the necessity to pay taxes that are due in Romans 13, but that is a teaching on the authority of government, not of taxes per se.
It is frequently argued, by those who see a Christian moral or theological basis for redistributive taxes, that modern taxation is a moral good, satisfying our duty of charity. At its extremes, this view is expressed in the claim that “the modern application of charity is by way of use of progressive taxation rates.”
This is the main method used to gain Christian support for redistributive taxation—the welfare state that the tax funds helps our neighbor and therefore its expansion must be a Christian duty.
This is contrary to Christian teaching. “At the heart of the Bible is the God who seeks the free worship of free human beings, and just as love of God is only real if it comes voluntarily from the heart, so, too, is love of neighbour. The Christian duty of charity must be undertaken voluntarily. There is no moral benefit in forced giving, as Saint Paul says: ““Each one should give what he has decided in his own mind, not grudgingly or because he is made to, for God loves a cheerful giver.””
Christians have a duty of charity to their neighbours, and are warned not to follow riches, but these are personal duties laid on each of us individually rather than collective obligations that can be satisfied through compliance with a human tax system. We cannot contract out our duties to others, nor can we nationalize them into the welfare state. Even less can we meet our duty to our neighbour by forcing another neighbour to meet his needs.
The Good Samaritan did not leave the dying man to the priest and the Levite, agents of the Jewish government, but cared for him himself.
This is, of course a libertarian, and if I might say so, evangelical view of the issue.
I fundamentally disagree with it. In a 2003 article on the theology of taxation that I wrote for the journal of the Ridley Hall Foundation I set out my case in full. I recommend the interested to read it in full.
My response to the particular issues raised are in there. I say:
For some the defence of [tax avoidance] is based on Jesus’ most commonly known teaching on tax, which was that one should pay what is due to Caesar to Caesar and what is due to God to God. Unfortunately it seems that this teaching has frequently been used as justification for the view that taxation is a secular matter which is unrelated to a person’s duty to God. In other words, if it can be technically, and however remotely, argued that a tax liability is not due, then there is no liability to Caesar. In that case it is suggested that because the duty to pay tax was only to Caesar, and not God, on the basis of this interpretation of Christ’s words, no accounting is required to the latter for any moral consequence of the action taken to avoid the tax bill (avoidance being used in this case in the context I note above). It is this dualistic approach, which suggests that as long as the law is complied with, any action in taxation is acceptable, that would appear to be used by many Christian business people to justify their actions in avoiding tax. They would not dream of using a similar argument to justify actions which are legal but nonetheless wholly unacceptable to the Christian believer, for example in the area of sexual morality. I cannot find any other basis on which many Christians (who otherwise
consider their actions ethical, and even corporately socially responsible) promote tax minimization through avoidance, as a necessary and appropriate business process.I think this view of Jesus’ teaching is wrong. If, as his other teachings make clear, it is a Christian’s duty to obey the requirements of civil authority with regard to tax, then I can see no room for such a dualistic argument based upon this one, well known, phrase. The construction of that phrase has, instead, to be seen inside its own quite distinct and separate context which had nothing to do with taxation. The result is that I cannot accept the view that transfer pricing, the use of offshore locations, and similar tax avoidance practices, are in any way consistent with Christian behaviour. These transactions and others like them are designed purely to avoid tax, contrary to the wishes of elected Parliaments, and without the necessary economic consequences of the transactions they purport to represent being suffered. The consequences occur at cost to others whom the Christian has accepted a duty to love.
Paul’s suggestion seems to coincide with this view. It is hard to believe that Paul, even though a Roman citizen, could have endorsed all the views of that regime. Yet in Romans 13: 6 & 7 he says “This is why you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. Pay to all their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, toll to whom toll is due, respect to whom respect is due, honour to whom honour is due.”
This too seems a reasonable interpretation of Jesus’ view. Both opinions appear quite clear and can be summarised as “pay what is asked of you”. In both cases there seems to be undoubted support for the idea of tax compliance and against those of avoidance, let alone evasion. In my opinion, this is the first essential element of a theology of taxation.
I explore other issues — including the fair rate of tax and whether it should be progressive or not (about which Rowan Williams has no doubt — he said so in the Q & A session on Monday) in the article and note that we have a:
duty to interpret the Bible in its modern context in accordance with sound hermeneutical principles.
The person who has most thoroughly and publicly offered such an interpretation in recent years is Susan Hamill, a professor of law at the University of Alabama. She has published the leading current paper in this area. In this she sought to argue on theological grounds to a state legislature with a high degree of professed Christian or Jewish members, that Alabama’s state tax code, which is both deeply regressive (i.e. rates are highest on the poor) and profoundly more expensive for the oor than almost any other state in the USA, is contrary to the ethics of Judeo-Christian teaching.
I concur with her suggestions that:
1. regressive taxation is contrary to Biblical teaching;
2. progressive taxation is consistent with biblical teaching;
3. it is appropriate that those with wealth should pay more tax than those without it.
I base these conclusions on the following:
a. Old Testament teachings make clear that those with a surplus from production (in modern parlance, a profit) should leave for the poor (in these days represented by their dependency upon the tax financed welfare state) sufficient for them to maintain themselves. This is for, example, inherent in the idea of gleaning (Lev 19:9, Deut 24: 19-22). No teaching to the contrary is ever found.
b. The teaching in Jesus’ second great commandment that we should love one another. It has been suggested by Hamill that this must, in part, be interpreted as being expressed through the provision of charity and the modern application of this is by way of use of progressive taxation rates.
c. The teaching derived from Genesis 4:9 and repeated implicitly by Jesus in considering who is our neighbour, that we are our brother’s keeper. This teaching implies that an unjust treatment to a fellow human being is a wrong committed against God. Our equality in creation places upon us a responsibility to care for each other. Hamill interprets this as a duty to pay progressive taxation since those with greater means have a duty to provide more for their fellow human beings. I agree.
d. The clear teaching in Matt 6:24 that a dedication to the accumulation of cash is contrary to devotion to God. Where a sufficiency of cash exists there is a duty to forsake wealth in favour of others if one is to answer the call of God. Again, this can, in its modern context, be seen as an endorsement of progressive taxation.
What this last teaching most clearly says, in the broader context of the teachings on prayer that immediately precede it, is that Christ must be the unambiguous centre of the life of a Christian. In that case I believe that the suggestions Hamill makes necessarily follow: progressive taxation based on the ability to pay is a fourth necessary part of a theology of taxation. We do have a duty to provide for those less well off than ourselves and in part that is expressed through accepting and paying progressive taxation.
Does the ‘charity’ argument, or Thatcher’s favoured reference to the Good Samaritan neuter any of this? No, of course it does not. #
The duty to pay tax was clear in Jewish law and in Christian teaching. The idea that the state might use that tax for much more than law and order and aggrandisement of the Emperor was unknown. But times have changed. So has society. Most ‘neighbours' in Christ’s time were literally known to the whole community in which they lived — which ere small. Tithes, gleaning and personal gifts were largely effective in ensuring the poor were maintained. That is utterly impossible now, and the rich are the poorest relative donors in our communities to compound the problem, despite the significant tax benefit to them from doing so — not shared by those less well off.
And as hermeneutics makes clear, we have a duty to interpret the Bible in a current day context — not in the context of the time it was written. If we do not we get absurd results — as some who profess to Christianity make all clear by their actions and expression of opinion. In that context charity for all the poor is not possible without a substantial centrally coordinated programme of provision clearly best run by the state and funded by tax. Anything else makes no sense at all.
And it also quite contrary to the message of Luke’s gospel. In Luke 4, starting at verse 18 Jesus says:
The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favour.
This is the clearest statement of Christian duty there is. Support for progressive taxation fulfils that duty.
If that is at personal cost — so what/ From Luke again (chapter 1);
He has shown strength with his arm; he has scattered the proud in the thoughts of their hearts.
He has brought down the powerful from their thrones, and lifted up the lowly; he has filled the hungry with good things, and sent the rich away empty.
The message cannot be clearer in my opinion: it is our duty to provide for the poor. We are to eschew riches. progressive tax as a matter of fact does that. Alternative tax methods do not. Nothing else is, therefore compatible in our time with Christian faith but progressive taxation.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
“The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favour.
This is the clearest statement of Christian duty there is. Support for progressive taxation fulfils that duty.”
I tend to read form the Authorised version which reads “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to preach to the poor.”, so I tend to think you are twisting references to suit your purposes. Obligations to the poor, hungry, oppressed etc are clearly set out in Matthew 6&7 and in the last part of chapter 23, but I still don’t see anything that provides for them being performed by the state.
Nor is there anything that absolves the Christian of those responsibilities when they are performed by the state. Indeed that is the very strong implication of Matt 23.
Your flawed assumption is that progressive taxation provides for the poor. For now its an academic argument, but perhaps something that will come back to haunt you at the pearly gates. Your argument turns on the assumption that by paying taxes the poor are looked after – or put it another way, you pay the taxes and the “civil authorities” look after the poor. I’m not sure this will wash – I’m not sure you are able to pass over your responsibilities as easily as this. Is it enough for you to have paid your taxes if it turns out that government was not doing that which you assume they are. Remember that you have to account for your own actions – not for those of others – and nor can you hide behind the actions of others. “Gordon said he was being a good samaritan” is not going to get you through those gates.
This is a huge subject to which justice can not be properly done by way of response to a blog. But here’s a few pence worth!
For centuries the UK had no social concept of a ‘welfare state’ paid for by taxation, apart from the Victorian Poor Law legislation that provided for the maintenance of local workhouses funded from parish funds. These lasted right up to 1947 when the National Assistance Act took over responsibility for ‘the poor’ & ‘needy’.
Along the way bodies of Christians (the local churches) adopted the Jewish principle of tything to make provision for the needs of those who were unable to maintain/sustain a living through their own resources (eg: unemployment, disability, sickness…) . Through this came forth a plethora of charities each devoted to meeting special needs in society.
Christian tything was to be viewed not as a ‘tax burden’ but as a demonstration of Christ’s love, compassion & care for those who could not hold body & soul together without the help of his/her neighbour.(“Love your neighbour as you love yourself”..etc..) Giving was theologically viewed as an unconditional demonstration of love which was central to the teaching of Christ. It found its highest expression in Christ’s words to go & sell everything one has & give all to the poor and then follow Him. The giving up of everything financial & material was not, of course, to be taken as the means of inheriting eternal life in the Kingdom of God where material wealth was of no consequence anyway. But salvation meant that the Christian would bring the values of the Kingdom of God down to earth where they were manifest in ‘giving’ (“seek first the Kingdom of God and his righteousness all these things (your material needs) will be added unto you”.. the Sermon on the Mount…etc..)
Today we live in a ‘welfare state’. The UK is not a country of Christians but some Christian values still permeate the culture of British society. From a Christian perspective taxation is a just, honourable & necessary means of making provision for needs which when met benefit Society as a whole. Equity in taxation is necessary in order that everyone may fesl that the ‘burden’ of taxation falls equally on us all & the ‘benefits’ of taxation serve the greater good of us all.
The problem is, of course, that many of us see our taxes being mispent, misdirected or misappopriated (eg: MP’s expenses, expenditure on weapons of mass distruction, etc..) Having hitherto left it to politicians to make wise decisions about how our taxes are spent for the benefit of Society as a whole, we have come to realise that many of our masters are themselves not governed by the same Christian values that we hold, & that there are many in society who certainly do not hold Christian values as is demonstrated by their desire to evade paying taxes altogether, or who deliberately seek ways of avoiding paying their fair share of taxes so that the ‘burden’ of taxation falls more heavily on ‘middle Britain’.
Money isn’t the root of all evil, but the love of it is,(“Where your treasure is there will be your heart also” Mat6:21) & there are those whose greed is so great that they have to use ‘evil’ means to keep more of what they have in a manner that actually contributes to world poverty. A just society is duty bound to seek out & eradicate such anti-social practices.
Alex’s comment “I tend to read from the Authorised [King James] version” reminded me of this amusing Paul Krugman <a href = “http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/08/lost-in-translation/” blog post from a month or so back:
“Oh my God — literally. Conservapedia is trying to produce a “fully conservative translation” of the Bible — although “translation” seems to be a misnomer, since they’re apparently going to start with King James and fix it, rather than go back to the original texts.”
I doubt that any of us know Richard personally so we can’t comment on whether he meets his obligations as a Christain personally. We certainly shoudn’t assume, as some seem to do, that he believes that taxes absolve him of any personal responsibility.
I don’t believe that progressive taxation “frees” us from tithing (Christ did that and made clear that all belongs to God). Neither do I think that anything in Richard’s blog suggested such a view.
In my opinion, a dangerous misconception of the Kingdom of God is to pitch it against “the world” as a abstract noun that disparages everything that is not expclicitly “Christian”. The Kingdom of God on earth has begun with Jesus work and is bound to spread in this world; healing and restoration is to happen among us by Jesus’ redemptive work and this will spread out in every area.
Jesus’ words “For the one who is not against us is for us.” (Mark 9:38-40) are crucial to me in this respect. I think in some areas of the state there is a risk to overshoot the (necessary) separation of state and “religion”. This is an observation which, from a Christian perspective, I would perceive not as a call to withdraw from government/state, but to make an attempt to get engaged in and to redefine the boundaries of what is bottom-line separation of state and religion, and what may be innovative, adequate and fruitful ways of complementary engagement (e.g. in welfare and social services, in schools, etc.).
Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions.
Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right
Carol
Marx was wrong
Not on everything, I agree
But undoubtedly on this
Not least because like Dawkins and many others he referred to a particular form of organised religion and not faith
I would agree much organised religion has caused major problems
But don’t confuse that with faith – they’re not the same thing
Richard
Alex
Anyone who can suggest I am twisting references by referring to the New Standard Revised Version of the Bible really has no place in serious debate
Candidly – that’s not a debate about faith – that’s a debate about nit picking
And not once do I say the individual should not give in cash and time – I think they should – and the tax system allows that to happen and for, in effect, a person’s tax to be hypothecated if they do so
But the time should be spent building the kingdom here on earth – and providing for the poor through a progressive and redistributive tax system is beyond a shadow of doubt a Christian activity in my opinion
Richard
@Richard Murphy
I would agree that Marx was wrong, but he was at least logically consistent. Essentially communism replaces religion with state – communists don’t like competition! I suppose the question is can you cherry pick Marxism, or is it all or nothing? In many ways the underlying economic analysis is simple but compelling, but ultimately only a partial theory. Problem with Marx is that (apart from the tortuose prose, of which many economists are guilty) it is more of a faith system than it is a theory capable of predicting stuff. And utimately all it really predicts is revolution. And history shows he was right but for the wrong reasons – the only revolution Marxists see is the proles rising up against them.
Alastair
The post Eucharist liturgy of many churches includes a prayer like this:
Almighty God,
we thank you for feeding us with the body and blood of your Son Jesus Christ.
Through him we offer you our souls and bodies to be a living sacrifice.
Send us out in the power of your Spirit to live and work to your praise and glory.
Amen.
The requirement is clear: that we dedicate our work as Christians to Christ – not the making of money. Thsi puts all Christian teaching at odds with neo-liberalism, per se
And those who have skills must use them in pursuit of the creation of Chsritian ideals – including relief of poverty
A regressive or even neutral tax system does not do that
Only a progressive one does
Ergo – we have a duty to spend our time creating one
Richard
@Richard Murphy
So are you suggesting that only government has the necessary skills, and that only by having a progressive tax system will it be able to exercise them? That is a very narrow view of the world. And I don’t think that is even close to what Jesus preached.
Richard, I don’t think Marx was criticising religion in the way you think. He sees it as purely a man-made construct for the purpose of giving pain relief, both mental and physical (like an opiate) but not with any spurious ‘control’ intent. Read the quote again. It’s only his advice to abandon the drug in order to see more clearly what their real condition is which you won’t like.
“But the time should be spent building the kingdom here on earth – and providing for the poor through a progressive and redistributive tax system is beyond a shadow of doubt a Christian activity in my opinion.”
I think Marx (and Dawkins) would agree that this is an activity which we should all be engaged with.
And those who have skills must use them in pursuit of the creation of Chsritian ideals – including relief of poverty
Yet you attack Bono for tax avoidance when he spends his life giving to charities and those less fortunate than himself
I guess the difference is missing out the greedy middlemen (the taxman or the church).
Actually I see little in your interpretation that supports taxation rather than charity.
Alastair
Would you like to list the other organisations who have “the necessary skills”?
Creg
When you say Bono “spends his life”, are you not overegging the pudding a bit? I don’t know any more than you do about how much Bono actually gives of his time and money, but this is between pursuing a successful career in the music business (unlike Bob Geldof!), relocating his home for tax purposes (Sorry, couldn’t resist that 👿 ).
@Richard Murphy
“Anyone who can suggest I am twisting references by referring to the New Standard Revised Version of the Bible really has no place in serious debate
Candidly – that’s not a debate about faith – that’s a debate about nit picking”
I am merely pointing out that your particular reference in Luke is not wholly convincing. In the equivalent texts in the same context in Matthew, the term “poor” is replaced by the term “poor in spirit” and the Authorised Version would support the idea that this is not a reference to worldly aid to the poor which is covered elsewhere.
But your theology is not as inaccurate as your mathematics. Regressive and neutral tax systems (not that I am actually endorsing either) can be part of a redistributive system provided that there is incremental tax with incremental income. The redistribution could just as easily be made through the provision of services which could either be universal or means-tested.
Whilst I hesitate to put myself forward as a bible scholar and also much as I love the Authorised version, my understanding is that its accuarcy as a translation of the original texts leaves much to be desired. I wouldn’t lean too heavily on it in this kind of discussion.
Alastair
You say:
Problem with Marx is that (apart from the tortuose prose, of which many economists are guilty) it is more of a faith system than it is a theory capable of predicting stuff.
Are you sure you aren’t talking of neo-liberal economics/ I well recall the vice Dean of Ely Cathedral studying economics as part of his PhD on Catholic social teaching and with astonishment saying “and people say we believe in fairies when we talk of God – what then do these people believe in?”
Quite right true. If you are sure there perfect knowledge, now and for all time, equal allocation of resources, no taxes, people who always maximise well being, and rather a lot more besides then you can of course believe that neo-liberal economics is fact and not a faith system.
But I think you’d probably be certifiable if you did
Which shows how ludicrous a basis for establishing policy it is
And that it is a pure faith system
Richard
Creg
Bono has clearly breached the requirement to pay as required by the civil authorities
Richard
@alastair harris
Heard of hermeneutics?
Try them
Jesus had not heard of the welfare state
Does not mean he would not approve
He’d also, I venture, approve of the end of slavery
Are you saying because it was inconceivable when he was alive it should not have happened or that the Christians who promoted it were wrong to do so?
Get real
Richard
@James from Durham
James
You’re right!
Richard
@Alex
Matthew differs in a number of respects from Luke – for example in the Lord’s Prayer Luke asks for daily bread – Matthew is much more ambiguous
The difference is clear and Luke seemed to mean what he wrote – he referred to the poor and meeting their need. It is part of the particular importance of his gospel
You can’t play one off against the other – they have different contextual relevance
Richard
@Richard Murphy
actually no, that is not what I am saying. neither explicitly nor implicitly.
Richard, I agree that belief in perfect knowledge, etc. is a ludicrous basis for establishing policy and belief in it is probably certifiable.
That point applies equally when talking about people in government as when talking about people trading in a market.
Amazing. Who would have thought a posting on the Theology of Tax would attract such debate?
The internet is a wonderful thing!
Alastair: Problem with Marx is that (apart from the tortuose prose, of which many economists are guilty) it is more of a faith system than it is a theory capable of predicting stuff.
Considering that Marx was writing 150 years ago, his analysis has proved remarkably accurate in predicting the course of capitalism and the current crisis.
Carol,
Unfortunately for you Marx has not been proved right. He’s been proven wrong. Dead wrong.
There is delicious irony in that it was Marxism that collapsed under the weight of its own contradictions, not capitalism.
Capitalism has not collapsed. The banking system very nearly did, but that is not the same thing. Capitalism can not collapse and cannot be overthrown because it is not a system that is imposed from the top, unlike Marxism, which is.
Capitalism is simply the human condition in economic form. That is why it cannot, has not and will not collapse.
Yes, but does God live offshore?
Peter
That is about as far removed from the truth as it is possible to be
There is nothing natural about en economic system which developed over the last couple of hundred years, that has no consistent form, that has never operated as the theory says and which is utterly incompatible with human nature
You mark yourself out as being as extreme as the Taliban by saying this
Richard
There is no reconcilation between the Individual and the Godhead.
The promotion of Self can only be achieved in Harmony.
Does no one read the texts?
The overarching reason that monotheism evolved was because of an understanding of shared humanity. It is obvious why it rapidly deconstructed into factions. Those that collated, devised and codified the religions we know today were the tiny minority of the wealthy estabishment. That is what Marx understood. As soon as that happened all of the landowner myths such as monarchy could be aggressively reinforced by the Individual. So I believe Marx was right.
Isn’t Murdoch worshipped?
Look at the language of the ‘bankers’ when they defend their metiers. They claim that it is ‘necessary’, that it is good for the collective. That their models and ideals are forging the success of whatever jurisdiction they are in?
In Guernsey I am frequently confused by the stance of a projection of ‘Christianity’ that in one sermon will tell people to be ‘excellent to each other’ but in the other spew forth invective about how petty materialism should be cherished as a core fundamental of our existence.
Communities count themselves as ‘Christian’, yet are inherently racist, sexist and drunk.
All of our Gods are different, but the Godhead is shared. An evolutionary singularity.
Tax is a tool to make society work. Without a shared infrastructure our needs are not met. This is a fundamental failing of the goal to individual transcendence. Maybe it should be remarketed as Status Of Social Responsibility. The more you give through legislated investment in human society the higher up the Rich List you go.
The more people that share a true social goal, the progression of Human need above the psychosis of individualistic hoarding – duh, why do wars start? – the faster humanity will achieve the comforts promised by our misplaced devotions.
Seriously, because you are born into one community that happens to be xyz, it doesn’t mean you have a RIGHT to ABUSE those that are not.
The psychological disassociation of the tool for market exchange and the real economic marketplace has created false idols. Organised religion was formed by the same thinkers. Marx was right.
Sorry, but that is the nitpickiest of nit picks “Give us this day our daily bread” is virtually the same as “Give us day by day our daily bread”, the implication of the Matthew is that this is a daily prayer for providence where Luke is a prayer, presumably prayed daily, for continuing providence. Howe that can be turned into a theological difference beats me.
But I think you are missing the context of the word “poor” in much of scripture. After all, in Biblical times more than 90% of the population was poor in economic terms, but the use of the word poor is probably not meant in the same terms as the “relief of the poor” for charitable purposes. Rather the use of the word poor in Matthew and Luke and particularly in Luke 4:18 probably reflects the usage in Isaiah, where poor usually refers to the dispossessed, downtrodden and powerless, reflected in Matthew’s “poor in Spirit”, and the reference in Luke to bringing good news to the poor is primarily a spiritual gift, as evidenced not only be the opening words of the verse, but also by the context of Jesus teaching in the synagogue in Luke 4:14-20, presumably to the populace and not to the Pharisees and scribes.
The language of charity in Matthew explicitly different, referring to the hungry, thirsty, sick, naked as in Matt 25.
Equally there is little basis for taxation to redistribute wealth. Sure enough Luke 6:24 preaches “Woe unto the rich”, but verse 37 in the same chapter preaches against judging and condemning others from which we infer that in Christian morality it is for the rich to decide whether their position is untenable, and not for others to pass moral judgement on them.
Peter, I don’t think that any reading of Marx would conclude that the current perfectly predictable crisis of capitalism signals the final collapse.
And I cannot see how the ownership of the means of production by a separate class is a natural condition. There is absolutely no necessity for the economy to be run in this way. Workers could raise funds for capital investment by taking loans from banks, which themselves could be worker controlled, but with money/credit purchased from the central bank, rather than created out of thin air as banks are allowed to do now.
I don’t think that Marx prescribed the authoritarian system which evolved in the USSR. He was not advocating state ownership but common ownership. But the far better organisation which Marx foresaw will be a long time coming via the necessary democratic process.
@Richard Murphy
In the interests of complying with your owm published policy on comments I think you should take this one down
Alastair
Tell me what is wrong with saying what is true?
Peter revealed himself to be a fundamentalist extremist
I used a shorthand for such extremism
I happen to think those who support extremism capitalism – the far right in other words – fundamentally threaten our democratic way of life. My analogy of threat was deliberate
Your problem is?
Richard
Alex
I am not picking: I am working on the basis of the advice of serious theologians who, unlike you, go back to the original text. You seem quite wedded to the idea Jesus spoke in 17th century England: not true. He spoke Aramaic and the record was in Greek.
Matthew was concerned with long term well being, or so it seemed: Luke was quite clear: he meant daily bread i.e. food, and the relief of poverty
Of course both are important.
And long term well being does require wealth generation – unambiguously – but not as an end in itself. It is for the benefit of communities. And like it or not the actions of the wealthy – Bono, Gates te al, is utterly meaningless except as example (maybe) when compared to what governments can and should deliver (but for tax haven abuse) in this world
As for your claim that the world does not have 90% poor now – I think you need to open your eyes very wide. None are so blind as those who will not see. Clearly you won’t and don’t
Richard
Richard: “And like it or not the actions of the wealthy – Bono, Gates te al, is utterly meaningless except as example (maybe) when compared to what governments can and should deliver (but for tax haven abuse) in this world”
Putting the blame solely at the feet of tax havens is stretching credulity to the extreme. Irrespective of tax havens, governments still have access to a huge amount of tax revenue. The reason governments don’t deliver isn’t a lack of funds, it is because governments inevitably tend towards corruption. In the developed world, governments respond to the demands of special interest groups and wealthy sponsors, in the developing world, governments tend to line their pockets more directly.
Paul
As we have shown – time and time again – illicit financial flows out of developing countries – mainly through tax havens – are many times more than official aid in
You generalise that governments tend towards corruption. No they don’t – individuals do. But those corrupt people need the help of corrupt layers accountants and bankers to hide their funds in secret. They don’t loot cash
Tax havens house those corrupt people and provide the necessary mechanisms
So yes we can blame tax havens – and those who run them for poverty and the deaths of hundreds of thousands
And we do blame them
Your denial of this reality is unbecoming – but does at least show you believe greed is consistently the cause of the undermining of well being
Richard
@Richard Murphy
I am offended by your analogy
Alastair
Then you’ll have to live with your offence
Just as I have to live with the offence you cause, often
And the greater offence the system you espouse causes to the avst majority of people on earth
Richard
“You generalise that governments tend towards corruption. No they don’t – individuals do.”
Some individuals do and they will inevitably gravitate towards the places where they can achiveve most through corruption – the most obvious one being government.
“But those corrupt people need the help of corrupt layers accountants and bankers to hide their funds in secret. They don’t loot cash”
No they don’t, they just need to be in government or have governments willing to do their bidding. You gave the examples of Bono and Gates and I think they are good ones, not because of their tax status, which I think is of relatively little importance, but their manipulation of governments in order to secure laws which benefit their own interests, specifically in the area of “intellectual property.”
Gates talks a good game on Africa, but he has lobbied for stringent copyright laws worldwide to protect his own interests and as soon as the One Laptop Per Child program threatened to offer low cost computing to the continent without Microsoft being involved, he wasted no time in trying to derail the scheme and ensure that Africans would in future be paying the Windows Tax.
Likewise with Bono, he might talk a good game on AIDS in Africa, but as soon as people start suggesting scaling back IP laws, which might make AIDS drugs cheaper, he’s up in arms about the threat to his own income stream.
Whatever good you think governments do in reducing poverty, they inevitably do more harm through serving the demands of special interest groups.
“Your denial of this reality is unbecoming”
Coming from somebody who insists that governments don’t tend towards corruption, I find that statement quite bizarre.
Don’t be too hasty in your judgements. Some of us are perfectly capable of reading the Greek texts, have studied Latin from the age of 9 and Greek from the age of 11, and the differences in the Greek are just as slight. As ever, some theologians read too much into specific words, and the differences between the model prayers found in Luke and Matthew is no more than the variations that might be found between prayer with the same theme and purpose and is hardly a basis for a radically different theology.
I think I’ll bow to Bishops on this
Not a person who can’t even give his own name
And who therefore cannot justify his claims
Richard
@Richard Murphy
so I trust you are going to change your published policy?
@alastair harris
Not at all
a) I am the arbiter
b) The post was consistent with the policy
Richard
“There is nothing natural about en economic system which developed over the last couple of hundred years, that has no consistent form, that has never operated as the theory says and which is utterly incompatible with human nature”
I am not interested in theories. I don’t use them on here, or anywhere else. I simply observe the world as it is. The human condition in economic form, which you so spectacularly misinterpret, has not evolved in the last two hundred years. It has been around since the year dot, since Man first walked the Earth. As such capitalism, contains all the vices: greed, selfishness, and recklessness. It also contains the finest traits that set us apart from other animals: flexibility, adaptation, intellectual creativity and courage. And nothing you say, revealing yourself to be blind, ignorant or both, can hide that. There is nothing fundamentally different from the way human nature has manifested itself from the Sumerian villages thousands of years ago to the rooftops of the City of London today. I repeat: capitalism is not a “system”. It cannot be, by definition.
Systems that are “utterly incompatible” with human nature are the ones that have been tried and tested to destruction, usually with the loss of a great deal of lives. Namely, socialism and communism. Any country which has tried either has always been a basket case because they cannot reconcile their goals with human nature. Ever. That’s why I am no longer a Marxist. You’ll get round to the same conclusion eventually…or maybe not.
Peter
You deny the truth: of course you live by theories – capitalism is a theory
It is only 200 or so years old
It did not exist before the enlightenment
So stop deceiving yourself
And read more widely
For someone with an academic email address you are remarkably ill informed
So far as I am concerned the basic Marxist prescription is the common ownership of the means of production and is the alternative to capitalism. This has not yet been successfully implemented on a comprehensive basis, but it does not mean that such a system could not work, especially by accepting that markets are not all bad.
Some of us are working on transition policies at this moment.
48 comments! It just goes to show – tax is interesting, but if you really want to make the sparks fly, get onto religion!
@Carol Wilcox
hmmm – the problem is the common ownership bit. How do you imagine that will work?