If I lived back in the Wild West days, instead of carrying a six-gun in my holster, I’d carry a soldering iron. That way, if some smart-aleck cowboy said something like, “Hey, look. He’s carrying a soldering iron!” and started laughing, and everybody else started laughing, I could just say, “That’s right, it’s a soldering iron. The soldering iron of justice.” Then everybody would get real quiet and ashamed, because they had made fun of the soldering iron of justice, and I could probably hit them up for a free drink.

- Jack Handy

In “A Reformed Christian Perspective on Global Justice and Political Economy” Dr. Fred Van Geest, Associate Professor of Political Science at Dordt College, says, “a Christian response to global socioeconomic injustice will remain incomplete as long as analysis remains at the level of principle elaboration…Christians must begin applying Biblical principles to specific contemporary public policy.” Our response must incorporate the manner in which economic power is exercised at the political level and vice versa. This article is my humble attempt at such a process through critiquing the current debate over theories of income taxation.

When discussing taxation, modern economists often attempt to balance the equity of a tax with its efficiency. Equity refers to the horizontal manner in which a tax treats people in similar circumstances and the vertical manner in which it treats people in different circumstances. Efficiency addresses the degree to which a particular tax raises revenue for the government without incurring an excess burden on the welfare of the taxpayer such as a reduced incentive to earn higher income. These concepts, as Christians, are often associated with justice and stewardship respectively.

In “An Immoral Tax” Michael Novak, creator of the famous triangle of politics, economics and morals, criticizes the standard progressive structure of the income tax employed by the government of the United States. He points out that progressive income taxes, which aim to redistribute income more fairly, result in the 27 million American households earning above $75,000 per year paying 75% of national income taxes. Households earning less than $36,000 per year pay virtually no income tax. Novak’s argument focuses on the idea that lesser vertical equity of income taxation results in pitting the various tax brackets of the middle and upper classes against each other in a struggle to determine which of them will shoulder the greatest burdens of the tax. He concludes with the statement that equality of income is far less admirable than equal treatment of individuals; “the paramount good of a good society is this: to bring everybody together.”

The trade-off between efficiency and equity in terms of income taxation is that progressive taxes can generate revenue for redistributive purposes but result in excess burdens while proportional taxes provide greater vertical and horizontal equity with lower efficiency losses. Thus, when determining which form of taxation one supports, Christian economists often have to answer the question of whether justice in taxation resides in its process or in its outcome. This question is the root of my frustration with the manner in which Christians address the issue of income taxation.

Those who place justice in the process of taxation, like Michael Novak, favor a proportional system of income tax because it treats everyone equally, and, as a bonus does not create excess burdens. They perceive these to constitute bad stewardship because they are losses in the efficiency of the tax. The opposing group place justice in the outcome of taxation and support progressive systems of taxation that redistribute income and create fairer situations in terms of the actual incidence of a tax.

As a Christian, I do not believe that a person can choose whether the justice of an action is exempt from the consequence and resides solely in the process or vice versa. In “The God Who Loves Justice,” Nicholas Wolterstorff says, “the salient indicator of injustice in society would appear to be the presence of persons in society who lack the material and other goods necessary for flourishing.” With this idea of justice in mind, it is illogical to say that a system of income taxation is just when it causes the poor to remain without the essential elements they need to thrive. One cannot uphold the idea that a particular tax is just simply because it treats everyone the same while its outcome is in direct contrast to principles of biblical justice. Furthermore, it is a miracle of the mind that it can convince itself that a process can be judged apart from the outcome it creates as though the two were independent entities.

Biblical justice also defies the notion of justice of process because it does not always treat everyone the same. While God loves and desires justice for everyone, throughout the Bible we can see examples of God giving special consideration and care to the poor and the oppressed. The principles may be the same, but they meet each person in his or her particular context with a unique application for that situation. Taxation that meets the standards of biblical justice will do the same: provide justice for each individual in his or her particular context. An income tax that does so and distributes income to the poor that need it creates a situation in which everyone has what they need to flourish: shalom.

Perhaps then, it would be appropriate when looking at our paychecks or figuring our income tax returns, instead of begrudging the government its money or considering how to get the most possible back, to analyze of what kind of society we want to be a part.