Is a 0% Tax "more Biblical?"

This was highly dubious. First, the text says that 20% of the produce was stored up by Pharoah, but it says nothing about whether it was taken by force (tax) or purchased. Of course, Pharoah had "insider information" -- he knew the price was going to skyrocket, but so did everyone else.

"Poor Egyptians" -- sorry, but it was only wealthy Egyptians who had land to begin with.

"Defraud" -- absurd. They were purchasing food. There was no fraud. It was a legitimate transaction, and they knew full well what they were buying and selling.

"Socialist" -- no, socialism would have just given them the food.

Any Egyptian who had land could have stored up in the seven good years, just like Pharoah did under Joseph's counsel. What was going on wasn't a secret. The only Egyptians who suffered loss were those who didn't believe what God said and were profligate in the good years.

It was a very different world and culture, and these accounts shouldn't be viewed through the framework of our modern philosophical and political controversies.

In any event, there is absolutely nothing in Scripture to say that this was supposed to be a model for anything. All it is doing is telling what happened.

If we're going to form a political/economic philosophy based on Scripture, we should look at clear principles from the NT and also at principles we can learn from the system God instituted for Israel. There was a strong sense of private property in the OT, tempered by an understanding that the land really belongs to God and is held in stewardship. There was no inheritance tax, for instance. But God had the right to give specific instructions as to how your land was used, and to prevent land-barons taking over all of the property and causing permanent poverty for other families. It was a far cry from modern socialism, which inevitably bankrupts itself, as history has shown over and over again, and current events in Europe are again demonstrating. It also had significant differences from unrestricted capitalism.

If we had a federal tax level of 0%, churches would have to get really serious about caring for the truly poor. So it might be a good thing, in an ideal world. But you have to have enough revenue from somewhere to pay the debt and provide national defence.

By today's standards, fiscal liberals want to spend far in excess of 20% of the agricultural contribution to GDP. If Joseph paid for the grain, that is the only amount that we know he spent. And if he did spend that much, it was the equivalent of a nation today building their currency or petroleum reserves.

There was zero deficit spending at all, even if he borrowed money to build the reserve. And if he simply applied an agricultural tax of 20% (rather than paying for it) as you originally suggested, that tax went to build a massive surplus.

That is so far removed from what today's fiscal liberals advocate and do that, well....

No, I don't see "fiscal conservatives" doing what Joseph did, either. He generated a massive surplus for the government, one way or another, and fiscal conservatives mostly seem to advocate a balanced budget.

But again, there's nothing to say that Joseph is supposed to be a model in any way. And there certainly are Biblical principles that apply.

Greg,

The Bible does have a position on private property rights as revealed in laws against stealing. Stealing is impossible in a world with no private property rights.

Better yet, Jim, instead of taxing income, tax sales. That way, all income is treated the same. Everyone pays taxes and shares the burden, and everyone controls how much taxes they pay. If you want to pay less, then buy less, or buy cheaper. If you want to pay more, buy more.

There is no end of the year crunch, and the government doesn't get to borrow people's money for free until refund day.

However, any national sales tax must include revocation of all other taxes. IOW, this cannot be an ad-on. It must be a replacement.

But since that will never happen, the elimination of deductions for non-profits won't be good because it will shift the burden to government, and they will never be as efficient as non-profits (though we probably need to reign in non-profits and more clearly define them; it's hard to justify being a non-profit when you pay your CEO a half-mil or more a year). Removing house deductions will severely hurt the housing market because it will remove one reason for buying a house. It will hurt communities because more people will become landlords, and rent prices will go up because the competition (buying) is off the table.

Health care benefits could be a refundable tax credit or rebate. But either way, it needs to be the same. Because I pay individual health insurance, I have to pay taxes on mine. If my insurance company would let my employer pay it, I would not have to pay taxes on it.

Ron Paul advocated for 0% income taxes, not 0% taxes. There is a difference. http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/taxes/ I don't recall him claiming that this is a more "Christian" way to go.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/background/numbers/revenue.cfm