"In the Bible, greed is wanting to take other people's money. In this perverse system, those who want to do that are 'the altruistic ones,' and those who are not so sure are the greedy ones."

so did Douglas Wilson refuse his stimulus check?

anyway, here’s a more balanced (imo) thought about changing tax rates and structures:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/14/business/economy/14leonhardt.html

I think the greed question is especially interesting. What exactly is the sin of greed? We know that a desire can be sinful because the object of the desire is forbidden. That would be inordinate affection of some sort, but not exactly greed. The NT sometimes uses the word pleonexia, which suggests an insatiableness… desire that lacks proper restraint of some kind. It may be directed toward a forbidden object in the first place, or maybe not, but is, in any case, excessive in some way and dominating.

But it is really hard to make a biblical case that greed is involved in the desire to keep what is rightfully yours.

As for the NYT article…

Over the last 30 years, rates have fallen more for the wealthy, and especially the very wealthy, than for any other group.

This is the case because rates were ridiculously high before the “last 30 years.”

At the same time, their incomes have soared, and the incomes of most workers have grown only moderately faster than inflation.
So a much greater share of income is now concentrated at the top of distribution, while each dollar there is taxed less than it once was.

Both this statement and the one before it reflect the usual confusion about who owns the money in the first place, and I think this is the key question. These statements are supposed to be read as “something is wrong with this picture,” but some basic beliefs about labor and property are crucial here. Do we believe that a) what you earn is yours? and b) what you pass on to future generations of your family is theirs? If that is the case, which bracket the taxation comes from is really pretty much irrelevant unless there is also a belief that “those who have more are obligated to give more to those who don’t, through the vehicle of government.”

But for those who believe the latter, the “rates have fallen” thing is not as simple as it seems.

The “rates have fallen” statement is usually repeated without pointing out what exactly it means, and many miss what it means. When a “rate” falls it does not mean that taxation falls. The rate is a percentage. So if income among “the wealthy” has grown so enormously in this 30 yr period, the amount they pay in taxes as grown as well if the rate stays the same. If the rate is cut during that period, the question that arises is “has the size of the rate cut been greater than the size of the growth of wealth?”
For example, if rich dude A’s tax rate is 70% and is cut to 60%, but his wealth grows by 10% in the same period, the amount of taxation is the same. His taxes have not been “cut.” And if his wealth grew by 20% in that period, it would be fair to say his taxes increased.

The only reason they are paying more taxes than in the past is that their pretax incomes have risen so rapidly — which hardly seems a great rationale for a further tax cut.

This shows the sort of assumption I’m talking about… there needs to be a rationale for bringing the tax rate on “the wealthy” closer to everyone else’s rate?

So much of the rhetoric on the subject is built on unproven assumptions about property, obligations to society, the relationship of government to those obligations, and sloppy arithmetic. (I’m a math dunce, but apparently even I have it down better than most congressmen… and media types)