Utilitarian Argument Against Taxes

Filed under Political

I'm not a democrat or utilitarian, but one of the things I hear from time to time is the idea that Jesus was a democrat.  At least, that's what democrats say to try to appeal to non-democrats (I think it's because it's assumed that a lot of non-democrats are into Jesus).

Basically, the usual assertion is that Jesus helped the suffering, so shouldn't we institutionalize the practice with government mandate?

The simple answer is "no."  The complex answer is "no."  And all other answers in between is "no."

The US government forwards 23¢ of every dollar it collects to help the suffering.  Playing strictly on the utilitarian argument (I think a lot of democrats are into utilitarianism), if your goal is to help the poor and suffering, paying taxes isn't the way to go about it.

Posted via email from Anthony Martin's Weblog


No tags for this post.


  1. Mieke says:

    Even God only takes our 'firstfruits' of 10%. Let's just mandate tithing to the Church of your choice and leave the legislation to God. I think the sermon on the mount covers it all. What did Obama say about the sermon on the mount? It's so "radical" the Defense Department wouldn't survive its application, but suggested the economy couldn't get along without it.

    Let's only accept taxes from those who can pay with a cheerful heart.

  2. Strictly speaking, 10% would certainly be an improvement for a vast majority of people in the US. But as it pertains to the principle, I think it is incorrect for one man or group of men to mandate a method of tithing. It is a heart issue and laws pertaining to heart issues can get particularly ugly.

Post a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.