Q&A: Taxation and the Law of the Kingdom — Various Questions
Taxation and the Law of the Kingdom — Various Questions
Question
Hello!
I looked into your remarks regarding the law of the kingdom and paying taxes. As I understand it, the Rabbi relies on the idea that “were it not for fear of the government” (that is, the categorical imperative), but precisely because of that he focuses the obligation on being a good citizen, as is commonly understood. I would be glad to clarify a number of questions:
- What are the boundaries of cutting corners? It seems quite clear that not reporting a one-time job of an hour or two is entirely reasonable, and there is no point in bothering to open a tax file for that and so on. I think one could have interpreted the law as applying differently to situations like these, even if the wording of the law indicates otherwise. But if the point is to be like other citizens — broadly speaking, almost all citizens want to pay as little tax as possible, even not according to the law. If they can avoid reporting and not get caught — they won’t report. If they can pay a contractor under the table and save the VAT — they’ll pay under the table, and so on and so on. In the end, there is almost no difference on this point between a loyal citizen and a disloyal one.
- In many cases, the accepted market equilibrium is based on tax evasion. If we are talking about an outrageous tax that most people partially evade, its force depends on the prevailing social reality; or if we are talking about a contractor or plumber where everyone works under the table, and they would not survive if they reported everything properly while competing against colleagues who evade? In the end, the formulation of the law also takes existing collection practices into account… Is this included, in your opinion, in the permitted kind of cutting corners? What are the limits?
- I tried to understand the conduct of Haredi society on this point, where broadly speaking this has become treated as permitted, and I understood several points that seem to have some truth to them — in the words of the halakhic decisors there are certain limitations (laws that are stable over generations; the purposes for which the money is used; land; the integrity of the government). Obviously, many of these criteria are not fully met in a modern state, but someone who accepts the principle that the state clearly needs taxes will judge the application generously. As for the bulk of the arguments, it seems that the simple argument is that the State of Israel — and a modern state generally — is no worse than the kingdoms described in the Talmud, regarding which it is forbidden to smuggle goods past the customs tax. What is your opinion?
- Does the fact that some of the money goes to sinful purposes justify avoiding taxes as much as possible? I argued to a Haredi neighbor that this is similar to a shared building with secular residents, where a regular elevator operates on the Sabbath, and the religious neighbor would then evade paying his share of the building dues… But I can understand the argument. If someone’s attitude toward the regime is that it is an evil regime — even if it collects taxes and distributes rights equally, its military aims are evil (Putin? a Nazi regime?) — I identify with the conclusion. And here in the end we return to the question of one’s attitude toward the state: if it is evil and we do not want our money to empower that evil, we would arrive at the conclusion that “it is a commandment to steal from the state”…
- I think one can challenge tax payment from another direction — equality in payment and in distribution. Admittedly, the Haredi public feels neglected in benefits [perhaps that is true with regard to direct budgeting, though not the indirect budgeting through the welfare system], but other groups feel they are being exploited. In practice, it is clear that the highest income deciles support everyone else, and under a terribly aggressive marginal tax system. Someone who pays very high tax may claim, and feel, exploitation and inequality. Is the authority of the government not limited in the face of such a phenomenon? One could include this under the clause that requires an established tax and equality before the law, but both are possible in one way or another in a case like this. If the government imposes a tax of 90% of output, must one obey it? Is the rabbinic-legitimating credit for taxation by a body that is secular in essence unlimited?
Sorry for the length, and thank you very much! I’m waiting for your illuminating words…
Answer
My answer got deleted because you posted this question six times.
I’ll answer again briefly:
1–2. I do not know how to draw a clear line. My claim is that there is no difference between the halakhic approach and the approach of common sense and natural morality. Whatever you would say there, say here.
3. I completely agree.
4. A halakhic transgression is not necessarily evil. There are people who do not believe what you believe, and therefore act differently. So one should not compare this to Nazis and Putins (maybe), etc. Even regarding disqualification from testimony, some halakhic decisors wrote that nowadays Sabbath desecrators are not disqualified as wicked people.
5. Everyone feels shortchanged. In the end, a progressive tax is definitely justified and accepted throughout the world. It is certainly within reasonable bounds. The rich person reaches his wealth with the help of the state and the public at large, who provide him services (transportation, communications, workers for his factories, security and police, education and culture, and more). As for the question of the precise boundary, I have no answer.
Discussion on Answer
1–2. Rounding off the edges in a way that law-abiding people would approve is not cutting corners. Cutting corners means acting against the law. In my view, what a normative citizen does is usually acceptable halakhically as well.
4. No. Because he benefits from the services of that state and must pay. Every citizen does not identify with some of the state’s actions. That is what democracy is for. Do you think the law of the kingdom was stated only about non-Jewish kings all of whose actions are carried out according to Jewish law (= the empty set)?
5. It would seem so. It depends on the situation and the reasoning.
6. There are no halakhic laws that deal with taxes. I have written here more than once that those sections in the Shulchan Arukh are not part of Jewish law. Beyond that, Jewish law certainly does compel charity.
7. A tax revolt is possible if the circumstances justify it.
1–2. I don’t think I presented borderline cases. There is a principled question here: is cutting corners limited only to cases where even law-abiding people would understand that this is reasonable rounding-off of the edges (not giving a payslip to a babysitter for a two-hour job…), as opposed to large-scale tax evasion — but of a kind accepted in society? In practice, almost no citizens feel normatively obligated to pay taxes, or that tax evasion is a moral offense. So if one accepts the broader definition, you have left no room at all for this prohibition. Are you not taking a position on this principled question?
4. If the state were not evil in the sense you described, but rather believed in secularism / Christianity / idolatry and acted with all its might to promote that — would that fact in itself not justify a citizen’s withdrawal from partnership in taxes whose purpose runs contrary to his faith?
5. Even without a precise boundary, can I accept the claim that if Meretz comes to power and imposes a 90% tax on the top decile, there is such a thing as “the government’s extortion”?
In addition — from a halakhic standpoint is there no room to limit the purposes of taxes, distinguishing between needs of security, education, health, and culture, and, by contrast, welfare? It seems to me that in Jewish law there are limitations of this kind (though they relate to compelled charity, not to tax as such but to a commandment). Will every expansive or restrictive model of taxation and government involvement be fully acceptable to Jewish law?
I’ll add one more point — in the world there is tax revolt. Rejection of a regime by nonpayment of taxes, as a kind of protest, in order to shake it up. There is an echo here of “your nature has not yet gone out into the world.” I assume that such a situation might be acceptable to you?
Many thanks!