"Is one morally obliged to pay all the taxes imposed?"

TAXATION

by Fr. Austin Fagothey, S.J.

THE STATE has from the natural law the right to the means necessary to accomplish it's end. One of these means is revenue, and the ordinary way of raising revenue is by taxes. The state has therefore the right to tax it's citizens. But this right is not unlimited. The state has the right only to the taxes it needs or forecasts that it will need, and acts against justice by demanding more. Legislators have a strict moral obligation not to impose too heavy a tax burden on the people, and those in charge of public funds are morally accountable for their use.

There is also a moral obligation to distribute the tax load as justly as possible. The only practical method is to make the taxes proportionate to the citizen's ability to pay, since there are many who not only cannot give anything but actually need help from the state. How the taxes ought to be arranged so as to fulfill the end of distributive justice is a matter for political and financial experts, and is beyond the scope of ethics as such.

If the state has the right to impose taxes, the citizen has the duty to pay taxes. In exercising it's right the state must observe distributive justice; conversely, the citizen's duty to pay taxes is one of legal justice. One who is not too poor to pay some taxes yet pays none whatever is plainly failing in an important duty concerning the common good. But there are so many indirect taxes today that no one could avoid paying some taxes. Whether a man could fulfill his whole tax obligation in this way would depend on the amount and kind of his wealth.

Is one morally obliged to pay all the taxes imposed? If the tax is clearly unjust, there can be no moral obligation. The judgment that taxes are unjust must not be made hastily; people are always complaining about taxes even when there is no doubt of their necessity. On the other hand, the complete lack of conscience shown by too many public officials in spending the people's money makes the conviction all but inevitable that the state has not the right to all the revenue it asks. We must therefore distinguish between the duty of paying taxes in general, a real moral obligation, and the duty of paying this or that particular tax, a duty that is often not at all clear.

Are particular tax laws, then, purely penal laws? Those who reject the term entirely must give a negative answer. But those who admit purely penal laws in some sense, whether they mean only so-called laws that are mere directives or whether they mean real laws with a disjunctive obligation, consider it a solidly probable opinion that some particular tax laws are purely penal. Taxes have become too numerous and complicated for the ordinary citizen to handle, are accompanied by disproportionate penalties, and are often deducted at the source so that the citizen is not even trusted to do his duty; the state shows that it simply wants it's money and makes no appeal to the public conscience. It is therefore difficult to see a moral fault in a man who in general meets his tax obligation and supports the state, but occasionally evades a tax here and there, provided that in doing so he does not resort to such practices as lying and bribery. Conduct of this kind is certainly not recommended and a truly upright man would despise such pettifoggery.

─Right and Reason: Ethics in Theory and Practice Based on the Teachings of Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas, Chap. 26─Civil Law. (2nd Ed. 1959. TAN Books)

BLOG UPDATE

REGULAR POSTING TO THIS BOG WILL RESUME WITHIN A FEW WEEKS.

The heretic

"... a heretic who obstinately disbelieves one article of faith is not prepared to follow the teaching of the Church in all things. But if he is not obstinate, he is no longer in heresy but only in error. Therefore it is clear that such a heretic with regard to one article of faith has no faith in the other articles, but only a kind of opinion in accordance with his own will."

~St. Thomas Aquinas: Summa Theologica, II-II, q. 5, a. 3.

Read more here

"Unnatural vice"

Whether the unnatural vice is a species of lust?

"... WHEREVER there occurs a special kind of deformity whereby the venereal act is rendered unbecoming, there is a determinate species of lust. This may occur in two ways: First, through being contrary to right reason, and this is common to all lustful vices; secondly, because, in addition, it is contrary to the natural order of the venereal act as becoming to the human race: and this is called "the unnatural vice." This may happen in several ways. First, by procuring pollution, without any copulation, for the sake of venereal pleasure: this pertains to the sin of "uncleanness" which some call "effeminacy." Secondly, by copulation with a thing of undue species, and this is called "bestiality." Thirdly, by copulation with an undue sex, male with male, or female with female, as the Apostle states (Romans 1:27): and this is called the "vice of sodomy." Fourthly, by not observing the natural manner of copulation, either as to undue means, or as to other monstrous and bestial manners of copulation."

~St. Thomas Aquinas: Summa Theologica, II-II, Q. 154, Art. 11.

* Read more here

Pieper: "The wonder of this world"

"In Hans Reichenbach's programmatic book, Aufstieg der wissenschaftlichen Philosophie ["The Rise of Scientific Philosophy"], we read: "The philosopher seems incapable of controlling his craving for knowledge." But is this not, we may say, an entirely appropriate observation? Our longing for knowledge is indeed beyond our control. Is this not what Plato had in mind when he compared the philosopher to the lover? The philosopher, too, is "beside himself" because he is moved to the core by the mirandum, the wonder of this world. We can wholeheartedly agree. What bedevils this insight, however, is the fact that Plato praises what the "scientific philosophy" rejects and disqualifies without feeling the need for further arguments: it shows a lack of discipline even to talk about things beyond our understanding!

Regarding the nature of the so-called "scientific philosophy", Pieper explains that "The most direct formulation is found in the positivist manifesto, Wissenschaftliche Weltauffassung ["The Scientific World View"], of the early Vienna Circle: "What is, is on the surface; everything is accessible to human perception." Thus it is nonsensical so much as to search for a "root" of all things or for their "ultimate reasons". In short, that mysterious object of philosophy is nonexistent. Only the objects of science are real; they are, in strict sense and without exception, the objects of perception."

~Josef Pieper: In Defense of Philosophy, Ch. 1. (Ignatius Press) 

"An educated man"

“EVERY systematic science, the humblest and the noblest alike, seems to admit of two kinds of proficiency; one of which may be properly called scientific knowledge of the subject, while the other is a kind of educational acquaintance with it. For an educated man should be able to form a fair off-hand judgement as to the goodness or badness of the method used by a professor in his exposition. To be educated is in fact to be able to do this; and even the man of universal education we deem to be such in virtue of his having this ability. It will, however, of course, be understood that we only ascribe universal education to one who in his own individual person is thus critical in all or nearly all branches of knowledge, and not to one who has a like ability merely in some special subject. For it is possible for a man to have this competence in some one branch of knowledge without having it in all.”

~Aristotle: On the Parts of Animals, Book I. (639a)

Aristotle, by Enea Vico.
Engraving, 1546; British Museum, London.

The problem of evil

“NO EVIL as such can be desirable, either by natural appetite or by conscious will. It is sought indirectly, namely because it is a consequence of some good. This is the rule for every type of appetite. A natural force works for a form, not the absence of form. Yet one form may extrude another. A lion kills for food, that means the death of the deer; a fornicator wants pleasure, and incurs the deformity of sin.”

~St. Thomas Aquinas: Summa Theologica, I, q. 19, a. 9.

(Thomas Gilby's translation)