The Pope Endorses Tax Choice

Turns out that the pope endorsed tax choice 4 years ago...

One possible approach to development aid would be to apply effectively what is known as fiscal subsidiarity, allowing citizens to decide how to allocate a portion of the taxes they pay to the State. Provided it does not degenerate into the promotion of special interests, this can help to stimulate forms of welfare solidarity from below, with obvious benefits in the area of solidarity for development as well. - Pope Benedict XVI, Charity in Truth

Click to expand...

As far as I can tell...it's by far the most notable endorsement of the idea of giving taxpayers more control over how their taxes are spent.

So, are any of you now "sold" on the tax choice concept because the pope endorses it? Do any of you like the tax choice concept even less because the pope endorses it?

Whose endorsement would you give the most weight to? If President Obama supported the tax choice concept would that motivate you to like tax choice on facebook? What about Ron Paul or Paul Krugman? Would any of you be swayed by the endorsements of any actors, musicians or athletes? If so, which ones?

I guess what I'm asking is...when it comes to new political/economic ideas...if you had to pick one person...whose opinion would you trust the most?

Personally, my vote is for Vermin Supreme. I love that guy. Both Vermin Supreme and the pope wear a funny hat.

Should the president wear a funny hat? Speaking of which, let's get crazy with the cheese whiz and consider James M. Buchanan's argument that the state has replaced god (Afraid to be free: Dependency as desideratum)...

But what if Nietzsche is right? What if God is dead? What happens to the person who is forced to recognize that the ordering presence of God is no longer real? What if God cannot be depended on to clean up the mess, even in some last resort sense? Who and/or what can fulfill the surrogate parent role? Who and what is there beyond the individual that can meet the yearning for family-like protectiveness? Who and what will pick us up when and if we fall? Who and what can provide the predictability that God and his agency structures seemed to offer?

...In short, persons are afraid to be free. As subsequent discussion will suggest, socialism, as a coherent ideology, has lost most of its appeal. But in a broader and more comprehensive historical perspective, during the course of two centuries, the state has replaced God as the father-mother of last resort, and persons will demand that this protectorate role be satisfied and amplified.

Click to expand...

We transitioned from putting our lives in god's hands to putting our lives in the state's hands...

Something wonderful happened in the United States during the middle third of the twentieth century. After decades of policies that smacked of Social Darwinism, our country created a strong, if incomplete, social-insurance safety net. - Henry J. Aaron, Progressives and the Safety Net

Click to expand...

Highly risk-averse people do not start businesses; instead, they tend to go to work for well-established businesses or, in many cases, for the government, particularly in education. That risk-averse population is the natural political home of socialism in the developed world, and particularly in the United States and other English-speaking countries. - Kevin D. Williamson, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Socialism

Click to expand...

The state has replaced god, so by endorsing tax choice, the pope is actually endorsing freedom of religion. The question is...of all the really "notable" people, why is the pope the first and only one who endorses freedom of modern religion? How did that happen? It kind of weirds me out. Anybody else think that it's strange?

Iffa de Papa says she's a-good, she musta be good.


:mrgreen:



(j/k)

You do have a choice to allocate a portion of your taxes---to the presidential campaign fund or not :lamo

have you ever talked about anything else but your pet made up thoery Xerographica?

RGacky3 said:

have you ever talked about anything else but your pet made up thoery Xerographica?

Click to expand...

You don't remember the time I asked you to take a photo of an epiphyte?

You've mixed a bunch of different issues into one post, so I'm only going to address the concept of "tax choice" as indicated by the Pope.

Tax choice requires an educated electorate that has a fairly decent grasp of the costs and benefits of the revenue stream and where they are applied. For instance, most people may be against war so they won't opt to send their taxes to the Defense Department, but what happens if an international situation happens where war is truly necessary and the infrastructure is then lacking? The whole point of having elected officials is that they dedicate their entire time and energy to the internal affairs and foreign policy of the nation, and allocate funds accordingly.

There's that, and, if public opinion can be so easily swayed by officials as the American public can be, then it would be a simple matter to propagandise people into funnelling their tax choice to the puppet-master's sector of choice. "Hey everyone! The terror threat is at its highest level right now, so make sure you put more of your tax dollars into the military so we can build a huge complex and start a bunch of forever wars!" Doesn't sound like a great idea.

And no, it doesn't matter to me that the Pope said it. A bad idea is still a bad idea. Though I see how tax choice would benefit the Church.

Northern Light said:

Tax choice requires an educated electorate that has a fairly decent grasp of the costs and benefits of the revenue stream and where they are applied. For instance, most people may be against war so they won't opt to send their taxes to the Defense Department, but what happens if an international situation happens where war is truly necessary and the infrastructure is then lacking? The whole point of having elected officials is that they dedicate their entire time and energy to the internal affairs and foreign policy of the nation, and allocate funds accordingly.

Click to expand...

When you go shopping, you find the items that match your preferences, you put them in your shopping cart and then you purchase them. Your accurate feedback helps producers know what to supply. If producers want more money...and who doesn't want more money...then it's their responsibility to persuade you that you will benefit by giving them your money in exchange for their products/services/goods.

Xerographica said:

When you go shopping, you find the items that match your preferences, you put them in your shopping cart and then you purchase them. Your accurate feedback helps producers know what to supply. If producers want more money...and who doesn't want more money...then it's their responsibility to persuade you that you will benefit by giving them your money in exchange for their products/services/goods.

Click to expand...

You haven't addressed what I said though. What happens if we defund the military and suddenly we need it? Disaster relief? There have to be mandatory areas of resource allocation that the public doesn't get to decide upon. I don't believe that pure democracies work for supporting the welfare of nationhood, so I don't believe that putting tax choice in the hands of it would work either.

The general public is not educated enough in all of the areas of expenditure in the government, along with the wisdom to know which is better. You also haven't addressed how we would avoid costly mistakes if someone in power manipulates a large portion of us into sending their tax dollars to a favored department. How do we avoid fascism and tyranny through the tax choices of the People? That's why we elect an administration to do that for us.

The government, by the way, is not comparable to just any other business. Businesses are purely self-interested entities, and although the government can also act in that way, it is still first and foremost charged with the best interest of the nation. The inefficiency of needing the government to justify every little expenditure to the public would stagnate our entire bureaucracy. Not to mention, with each new administration the spending priorities might shift, rendering old projects wasted.

Northern Light said:

You haven't addressed what I said though. What happens if we defund the military and suddenly we need it? Disaster relief? There have to be mandatory areas of resource allocation that the public doesn't get to decide upon. I don't believe that pure democracies work for supporting the welfare of nationhood, so I don't believe that putting tax choice in the hands of it would work either.

Click to expand...

There's some optimal supply of public goods. But that optimal supply can only be determined by our true preferences for public goods. Another word for "preference" is "demand". So what I'm saying is that the optimal supply of public goods can only be determined by our demand for public goods.

And to be clear, "optimal" does NOT mean too much national defense and not enough public healthcare. Nor does it mean that we can possibly truly know the future. So it doesn't mean that we won't make mistakes...it just means that we'll maximize productivity, prosperity and create ridiculously more value than the current system. The weakest links will be found and strengthened far faster than with our current system.

Don't take my word for it though...read up on preference revelation.

Northern Light said:

The government, by the way, is not comparable to just any other business. Businesses are purely self-interested entities, and although the government can also act in that way, it is still first and foremost charged with the best interest of the nation. The inefficiency of needing the government to justify every little expenditure to the public would stagnate our entire bureaucracy. Not to mention, with each new administration the spending priorities might shift, rendering old projects wasted.

Click to expand...

It doesn't matter whether the government is a business...or a non-profit...or some other type of organization. Either its revenue accurately reflects the amount of value that it creates...or it doesn't. The market works because WE, THE PEOPLE, decide whether an organization is truly taking our interests into account.

Am I taking your interests into account? If so, then please contribute your time/money to the tax choice movement. Well...maybe I AM taking your interests into account...but, because you're predicting that I'll continue to do so regardless of whether or not you contribute...you figure you'll save your time/money for other priorities. This is known as the free-rider problem. We solve this problem by forcing people to pay taxes. But that still does not solve the preference revelation problem. In other words...forcing you to pay taxes does not communicate exactly how much you "demand" a public good. Without this information, there's no way to know exactly how much of any public good should be supplied. Solving the preference revelation problem would be as simple as allowing taxpayers to choose where their taxes go.