Do any of the reconstructionists lay out a tax plan? I know Rush adamantly opposed property tax, etc., etc., but have any of them laid out how they believe taxation should/would take place?

Thanks,
Keith

Gary North in An Introduction to Christian Economics has these listed in his index with a major chapter on Property Taxes and eminent domain:

Taxation, 42, 48f, 195, 246, 272, 308ff
exemptions, 320ff
invisible, 7, 21f, 24, 32, 35, 42, 49,
54, 64, 95, 153f, 158, 179, 195
property, 308ff
reform, 322, 324
Taxpayers* revolt, 195

Gary North's Economic Commentaries on the Bible can be found Here

A very profitable series of lectures on Economic Ethics by Bahnsen can be found here

Economics is NOT my forte- I've only listened to the Bahnsen lectures from all of the resources listed above.

__________________
Chris Rhoades -33
Good Shepherd Presbyterian Church (PCA) Nashville, TN-Under Care

Vera theologia non theoretica, sed practica est; Finis siquidem eius agere est hoc est vitam vivere deiformem. - Martin Bucer
""True theology is not theoretical, but practical. The end of it is living, that is to live a godly life."

I once heard Gary DeMar (or maybe it was a close "disciple" of his) suggest a Flat 10% Federal Tax because in his words "no Government has a right to demand any more than Almightly God does). Of course with State, Local, and Sales taxes the total tax bill could easily rise to 20-25% of our incomes, which is still better than today.

[Edited on 7-11-2005 by BrianBowman]

That is also argued by Gary North in the book Tithing and the Church This is an excellent book - can't endorse every jot and tittle but a must read for this generation.

See especially his chapter on Tithing, Taxes, and the Kingdom: pg 60-62

I have argued that the authority to collect the tithe from its
members is the number-one economic mark of sovereignty for
the institutional church. I have also argued that the modern
State's ability to collect taxes above the level of the tithe is the
number-one economic mark of covenant-breaking humanist
man: the mark of tyranny (I Sam. 8:15, 17). Finally, I have
argued that the right of the individual, family, or business to
retain at least 80 percent of its net increase is the economic
mark of a free society.

The battle for control over the net productivity of men is a
battle for the future. Basically, it is a battle for inheritance.1
The question is today: Who will win this battle: covenant-keep
ers or covenant-breakers?

Primary covenantal sovereignty in history belongs to the church. The church is society's central institution. Primary
economic sovereignty belongs to the individual, but this sover
eignty is normally manifested through the family.2 The State
comes in third in the sovereignty race. This outrages those who
proclaim the power religion: the State as healer.

The debate in Christian circles today seems to be between
those who defend the primary sovereignty of the State and
those who defend the primary sovereignty of the family. The
problem is, we are talking about different kinds of sovereignty.
Primary judicial sovereignty belongs to the church; primary
economic sovereignty belongs to the individual and the family;
the State is to protect the sovereignty of the other two.

What I propose is a restructuring of the debate: a debate
over the rights of inheritance. The State has made major in
roads in this area. It wants the inheritance of both the family
and the church. Neither the church nor the State creates
wealth; both must be supported by those who do create wealth.
The question is: Which of these two institutions will best protect
the sovereign rights of those who create wealth? Which is the
greater threat?

Church or State

Today, far too many Christian leaders are asking themselves:
Which institution possesses greater sovereignty in history,
church or State? Are both equally sovereign? The Bible is clear
regarding economic sovereignty: a State that taxes at a rate
equal to the tithe is tyrannical (I Sam. 8:15, 17). Thus, the
church possesses greater economic sovereignty.

But what about legal sovereignty? Here, again, economics
comes into the picture. Legal sovereignty is visibly manifested
by an institution's authority to impose taxation on others and
escape taxation by others. Can the State legally tax the church?
This issue has been debated for centuries in the West; the issue
has obviously not yet been settled.

Tithe or Tax: An Inescapable Trade-Off

The church today, and throughout most of history, has
refused to preach that its members owe God's local institutional
church a full tithe on their economic increase. The State in the
twentieth century has not suffered from a similar lack of will. It
forthrightly declares its supposedly primary judicial sovereignty
by imposing taxes far beyond the limits of God's tithe. This is to
be expected, given the timid retreat of the church and the
moral rebellion of its non-tithing members. Rushdoony has
cited an early medieval sermon on the tithe. The preacher
warned that if men do not pay their tithes to God, they will
wind up paying them to the State:

Our ancestors had more than they needed because they gave
God tithes and paid their taxes to the Emperor. However, since
we do not wish to share the tithes with God, everything will soon
be taken from us. The tax collector takes everything which
Christ does not receive.3

The modern church has seen this prediction come true -
with a vengeance. The modern State takes at least 40 percent of
most people's income, not just ten percent. Christians have
denied the sovereignty of God to collect the tithe through His
local church, but they have not denied the sovereignty of the
State to collect taxes on a level twice as high as Pharaoh's 20
percent (Gen. 47:24).4

And if it is true that the State shouldn't tax more than the 10% that the Church gets, wouldn't that wonderfully reduce the scope of the state?

Then again, maybe not. Deficit spending might make the term Google more than a search engine name.

Whoa! This is interesting stuff.

Since the list of defining marks of Theonomy were given on the Board, I've been doing a study on law, liberty, free-will, etc., as these all relate to man under God's dominion. What is it the law requires of man? What is the purpose of law? and other such questions are basic to that study. One of the single-most principles in question, of course, is "general equity", the limitation of any particular law as it is applied to any one given situation.

This involves economics as well, though I haven't done any study into that field of law as yet. These quotes are a good start for that. I would question where the idea of the right to 80% of one's income comes from, but it sure would be nice if a government could guarantee at least that for those who actually require if for their families.

This society is not at all friendly anymore to large families. There are government-granted deductions and allowances, as far as income tax is concerned, but almost everything else is geared to the 4-5 member family, cost-wise. Only occasionally does one find a place where they treat the large family with respect and honour. But it is clear that a large family can't afford a lot of things that are much more commonly used by smaller families. Even going to the zoo, we've turned away at the gate because it was far too expensive for us.

80% would be nice, but it wouldn't cover everything for us, that's for sure. There's more to economic law than that, I believe. I'm going to cpy and paste your quotes, Chris, and add them to my study. Thanks.

__________________
JohnV :detective:

John Vandervliet
Ontario, Canada
member of: Canadian Reformed Church
"In coming to understand anything we are rejecting the facts as they are for us in favour of the facts as they are" C.S Lewis, An Experiment in Criticism

erm... i don't understand the logic in this.

God demanded 10%...but he in no way made that demand a commentary on what governments could tax. Sure, biblical government would be contrained by principles of fairness, but i think Mr DeMar is making scripture say something it does not.

__________________
Mark
Independent baptist
Singapore

I think what he is trying to say is that the government would be moving toward statism (deifying the state) when it begins to demand more of you than God does.

__________________
J. B. Atken
John Knox PCA
Layman, M.A. student at Louisiana College

Nuther good quote:

Moses and Pharoh - Gary North pg. 211-212
http://www.freebooks.com/docs/21e6_47e.htm

The Pyramid Society

By centralizing power, the modern State is recreating the pyramid
society, the top-down system of total control "” or attempted total
control "”that destroys the fabric of society. The caretaker State steadily replaces the biblical concept of the night-watchman State. The most important form of government, responsible self-government under God, is steadily eroded by a new concept of government, the messianic State. Social order also erodes. As the French Catholic social
philosopher, Lamennais, wrote in the early nineteenth century,
"Centralization induces apoplexy at the center and anemia at the ex
tremities."30 Nobody has ever put it more graphically than this.

The biblical social order is utterly hostile to the pyramid society. The
biblical social order is characterized by the following features. First,
it is made up of multiple institutional arrangements, each with its
own legitimate, limited, and derivative sovereignty under God's
universal law. Second, each institution possesses a hierarchical chain
of command, but these chains of command are essentially appeals
"”"bottom-up" institutions "”with the primary duty of responsible action placed on people occupying the lower rungs of authority.
Third, no single institution has absolute and final authority in any in
stance; appeal can be made to other sovereign agents of godly judg
ment. Since no society can attain perfection, there will be instances
of injustice, but the social goal is harmony under biblical law, in
terms of an orthodox creed. God will judge all men perfectly. The
State need not seek perfect justice, nor should citizens be taxed at the astronomical rates necessary to sustain the quest for perfect justice.31

Hayek has made a point which must be taken seriously by those
who seek to explain the relationship between Christianity and the
advent of free enterprise capitalism in the West. "There is probably
no single factor which has contributed more to the prosperity of the
West than the relative certainty of the law which has prevailed
here."32 Sowell's comments are especially graphic: "Someone who is
going to work for many years to have his own home wants some fairly
rigid assurance that the house will in fact belong to him "”that he
cannot be dispossessed by someone who is physically stronger, better armed, or more ruthless, or who is deemed more 'worthy' by political authorities. Rigid assurances are needed that changing fashions, mores, and power relationships will not suddenly deprive him of his property, his children, or his life."33 Hayek quite properly denies the validity of the quest for perfect certainty, since "complete certainty of the law is an ideal which we must try to approach but which we can never perfectly attain."34 His anti-perfectionism regarding the rule of law is also in accord with the anti-perfectionism of Christian social thought in the West.35 Christianity brought with it a conception of social order which made possible the economic development of the West.

Don't want to say this, but the above to me sounds like pure baloney. Maybe I misread, but the very fact that knowledge increases, and we gain more insight in such areas as psychology, sociology, chemistry, biology etc. Our laws should reflect the improvement and augmentation of our learning. The fact is 100 years ago, the laws would be less, but due to technological advances etc our laws have to be upgraded since human imperfection contaminates every area. 100 years ago, drinking and driving was probably not a problem, muchless seat belt requirements for children, but due to increased knowledge our laws had to be upgraded to hit the center of the target eventhough it will never hit the perfect center.

The Author also creates a false dichotomy by putting harmony of a state at odds with perfect justice. I disagree, the level of justice is always determines the level of harmony in the state. Another factor that determines the harmony of the state is the psychological cohesion of the nation.

Lastly, increased taxation is a natural and logical outcome of any growing democracy and republic. As states grow, so too does the demand for certain government services, and the only way this demand can be met is via taxation. In addition, the increase of the Consumer Price Indexes also necessitates that the government has to purchase its goods at comparative prices, hence the need to accurately adjust its coffer levels to meet the growing demand of services. This is peculiar only to a democracy, because the people determine their government by their demands, and the government's goal is to fulfill the demands of the people, hence building infrastructure, health, and educational facilities in hopes that it will improve economic activities etc, of which all these buildings is done via bonds, borrowed money and increase taxes. Can't escape it.

The only problem I have with governments is not necessarily their increase of taxes, but their management of these taxes, and the collection of these taxes.

If a government is going to increase taxes the citizens should
1. Know exactly what the increase of taxes will be for.
2. Submit to an audit, and if they fail, the project should be put on hold.
3. Taxes should be reviewed and if the project comes out to less, the remaining difference should be refunded.

[Edited on 7-12-2005 by Slippery]

__________________
~Keon Garraway~ Brooklyn, NY Member of Franklin Square OPC

Love for God demonstrated by the love for our children in giving them a God centered education is the only hope for our country. by David Morrow
Pslam 71:20 [Thou], which hast shewed me great and sore troubles, shalt quicken me again, and shalt bring me up again from the depths of the earth.

I have a bunch of questions from the first set of quotes. But I first would like to swing this by you all: "The purpose of law is to secure the liberty of the people", an American truism. By people, I take it, is meant all individuals or groups of individuals under the jurisdiction of that law. What do you think of this?

If it holds true, then it should hold true for economic law as well. If it doesn't hold true for even judicial or civil law, then how can it hold true for economic law?

Chris's second set of quotes are again interesting. This time I would tend to agree with the main sentiment. It seems to evoke the charge that a State that has become an entity unto itself, and therefore more important than the individual, is more bent on laws that secure the liberty of the State to do as she wills, rather than to secure the liberty of the idividual to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

It is also seems to be an indictment against those whose pursuit of happiness is outside the realm of a virtuous life; who use liberty as a licence to doing whatever they want irrespective of morality or virtue.

But Keon's point is well taken. We are not just being taxed at increasing rates, we are requiring government to have social control over more and more; and for those services we are willing to pay. I think particularly of health care in Canada, the single biggest draw on our tax dollar. What it actually is is seeking security in the social mass, and thereby deferring personal responsibility. In other words, we're creating the very monster we're so outraged about.

Are we really answering the problem if we shift the economic sovereignty off the state and onto the church? Does this not just make the church the state?

Great analysis and condensation of the key points. The only thing I would change would be your last statement about changing things from the state to the church...

North wasn't advocating a collapsing and making the church "it".

Separate institutions - Church gets her tithe and handles the things within its realm (diaconate type things, paying of pastors, etc.) State gets its part (10%? not sure of adequate taxation - again, I'm swimming way over my head in economic matters) and takes care of justice issues etc. Families and individuals retain the rest of the money and are responsible for self governing (including healthcare etc. - can coopt with businesses - still matters of liberty). Then there is the free market not bound by the state or the church although I'm sure there is a case to be made for some interposition. I'm thinking sabbath blue laws (not all theonomists agree on this), regulating of corrupt practices, no XXX businesses, etc.

And for the heck of it - notice:
one of the more "rabid" recons of the day arguing for bottom up, limited, separate authority structures all under God's law. For the life of me in this limited range of quotes - everyone would want this stuff. Of course I did say limited range...I know there are many other items that people take issue with.

This has been interesting reading for me as well. I'm just pulling out some quotes here and there as I scan the books under the economics category from www.freebooks.com - North's site.

My last comment was in reference to Gary North's views in the previous post.I don't know what he means by "covenantal sovereighnty", but it seems as if he is advocating that the church take the place of the State.

The "bottom up" approach, as opposed to the "top down" one, is more in line with the Christian view of authority. It isn't so much "bottom up" as it is service under the same Master as those over whom authority is given. That is, a powerful figure in the church is not so much powerful as he is enabled to serve a wider and broader area of the Church. He is just as much an individual servant as the least powerful servant; still just equal in value as an object of Christ's love and grace. Whether it is gifts of intellect, or of organizational talent, or of economic savvy, whatever he has been especially gifted with that enables him to have such a wide influence, it is still a gift, just as much as "the least of these thy brethren". As such, he has no authority to "lord it over" his brethren.

I believe that in the Word we find truth, and that abiding in it we will become free, free even from those things that reign over us in our thoughts. The Spirit is an active participant in our growth and maturity, if we live in the Spirit. So I see the law as a law of liberty, as in James 1. And I believe that true liberty is found in virtue, truth, and righteousness, as we grow in these through the Word. The law facilitates that. "Against such there is no law." It is our aid in freedom. It is only binding upon those given to finding happiness in vice and immorality, in themselves instead of in God. As long as freeom is not licence for sin, law is for securing freedom for the individual. That has to be the basis for any law, even economic law.

So the church does not "tax" its constituency. The church's task is to minister the Word, to be a fellowship of Christ's body. The church requires of us to give in thanksgiving to our Redeemer, and in mercy to those in need. Not to give is a personal failing in faith, and exposes a deeper sin within, if the person is well able to give. If the community is prosperous, then the church ought clearly to be able to help those in need, and to afford ministry outside her immediate domain, namely missions.

It seems to me that building a St Peter's is just as much a sin as it is to withhold one's monies from the church. I'm not saying that the church is asking too much by asking a tithe, ten per cent; but I am questioning a top down view of a sacrosanct heirarchy in the church replacing that same heirarchy in the State. If this is the same objection North has in mind with his "bottom up" approach, then I wonder what he means by "covenantal sovereignty". Does he define it somewhere?

I think it is interesting how culturally conditioned theonomy is. American theonomy looks an awful lot like a pristine American Constitutional republic. Theonomy in Scotland/England (Covenanters/Puritans) looked alot like the pristine Christian constitutional monarchy. In Geneva, it was the pristine form of the city state. In Rome, is was the Christian Emperor. Yet all had Scriptural reasons for those formulations. Not saying these ideas are necessarily right or wrong. I just find it interesting the comon pattern that has developed historically. Each generation felt their own systems of government adequate but only needed some Chritian influenced reforms. I wonder what the next non-American generation of Christians will think of the ideal form of government.

__________________
Patrick
OPC
MDiv, RTS Jackson.

"He does well, that discourses of Christ; but he does infinitely better, that by experimental knowledge, feeds and lives on Christ." Thomas Brooks.

Very perceptive observance Chris

__________________
Ryan
1689 London Baptist Confession

I personally believe that it is pushing scripture a bit far to say that a biblical government can tax no more than 10%. I certainly believe it would be wrong to hold to this belief and deny people 'comforts', 'justice', or 'rights' for the sake of sticking to this small tax rate which scripture does not directly support.

Most money you give to the state comes back to you and if it does not then at least you know it is benifiting your neighbour. I support high tax rates and I like it how my government pays for my health care, education etc... we pay our taxes and it is like instant insurance. We can go to the doctor when ever we are sick, our pets can see the vet without us worrying too much about the cost. Education is available to all who can get the grades. Those students who have poor parents (under $60,000 a year) get their own allowance from the govt. of $150 per week. Paying taxes brings comfort. I do not not believe it is deifying the state but is rather a complex 'insurance plan' which benifits us all. I am not so attached to my money that I keep a notebook handy to see if I am running at a profit or not. I never know when the government might need to pay out a lot of money to me.

I believe thoughout the law of Moses there were laws which set people, especially 'business men' at disadvantages for the sake of 'social welfare' - the law about not going back and rechecking your field etc... and leaving fallen fruit on the ground being one of them. I may be sticking my head on the line here but I believe a social welfare, socialist state is one of the more godly states we can have and is 'putting Christianity into action' (as one of our Prime Ministers said).

__________________
Fraser,
Trinity Reformed Baptist Church
Hamilton, New Zealand.

Ahhh, yes, Christianity is the State. Now, if they would just administer those pesky sacraments, baptizing people in the name of America, New Zealand, and we say together, "Our father, who art in Washington, hollowed by Thy name, Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done, all over the earth as it is in Washington, give us this day, our daily bread, and our health care, education, allowance, diapers, please take care of us from the cradle to grave, and lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil and freedom and from ourselves, for Thine is the Kingdom and the Power and the Glory forever and ever. Amen."

Give me liberty or give me death.

No King, but Jesus.

openairboy

I may be wrong on this, but I was somewhat under the impression that theonomy wasn't promoting a specific form of government, i.e. democracy vs. monarchy, but is more concerned about the laws of the land. So, I personally could careless if we had a democracy as long as the king ruled righteously/justly.

But, I hope and pray, that the Lord doesn't give us a 'king' like the other nations. Namely, one that will take 10 % of my labor, send my sons and daughter to war via "kidnapping"/draft, and all the other things that Israel wanted.

openairboy

I still would like some comments of the American truism, "The purpose of law is to secure the liberty of the people." Is it Biblical? Within the confines of what freedom means, that is, to pursue virtue, truth, and righteousness without constraint, and not freedom to pursue vice and immorality, I believe it is.

The problem is, who gets to define what truth and righteousness is? And who is going to dictate what morality is? I don't think we as Christians have failed so much, those of us who sincerely try, but rather it has been that our empire's capital has not yet been sacked, leaving everyone to truly wonder why society has fallen apart? Augustine tore apart the competing religions, so much so that they dared not rear their heads again out of shame. But the people were prepared for it by the sacking of Rome itself. Augustine's City of God may not ever have been written except that the Barbarians sacked Rome. Today everyone is too secure in their economic tent, whether it is a social tent or a capitalistic one. They are not ready to hear what's wrong with their moral system yet, because it has not yet threatened their own welfare.

When it finally does, we had better be ready with more of the City of God type exploding of arguments opposed to Christianity. I would like to believe that this is mainly what venues like this are for.

JohnV,

I guess to answer indirectly - might just be a recapitulation of what you just said - we need more than Augustine. We can demolish arguments and pull down strongholds against everything that exalts itself against God...that is the negative action. But what do we propose to put in its place? Since we're quoting from Gary North these days - a favorite aphorism he uses is "You can't beat something with nothing". We can poing out the failings in legal positivism in law, communism as a economic social system etc but what do we as Christians erect in its place? North et.al. said biblical law. What standard are we to rule by so as not to become tyrannical or legalistic? At what points do the laws encroach a person's liberty instead of establishing it? These are the questions you as well as I and others are all wrestling through, possbily from different perspectives or from different hermeneutics - but at least these questions are getting asked and answers are being sought out.

I just don't want Christians to ape the Romans and get sacked by the barbarians intellectually, culturally etc. I yearn for the Church Militant to be militant in the best possible way.