In halachah, taxation has a long history

In this world nothing is certain except death and taxes. (Benjamin Franklin, 1789)

Having just entered a new financial year so that our minds are directed to relevant issues including taxation of all types, I thought that some comments on halachah and taxation might be in order.

The earliest biblically recorded form of taxation is the half shekel payable annually for the upkeep of the Mishkan and subsequently the Beit Hamikdash. There were also tithes payable to the Levite and the poor as well as Terumah given to the Kohen. However all that was aside from tributes payable in subsequent generations to the king – that while accepted in principle became a very vexed matter following the death of King Solomon, even leading to the break-up of the kingdom when his son and successor Rehabaum refused to compromise, threatening instead to increase the taxation burden on the populace.

Mishnaic and Talmudic literature, reflecting realities of the Roman period, contains many references to taxation. The Romans substituted a poll tax for their benefit in place of the half shekel that all Jews were used to paying. “Mukhsin – tax collectors” were frowned upon, probably not because of the principle of negativity to tax per se, but because as those who acquired the right to collect taxes, submit the prescribed amount to the authorities and maintain a personal right to the balance, they were seen as robbing the populace. Thus the Talmud in Nedarim (25a) specified that it was only in regard to such tax collectors that one may falsely deny ownership of property (and thereby try to minimise payment), despite the dictum “dina d’malchuta dina – the law of the land is the law”, which forbids tax avoidance as well as so many other matters. (I am not here referring to certain impositions with an antisemitic purpose; in such cases, subject to circumstances, different principles may apply even from a halachic perspective.)

Also relevant to Talmudic approaches to taxation is the dispute between the sages I quoted some weeks ago prior to Lag b’Omer regarding the improvements made by the Romans using funds collected from the public.
“It once happened that Rabbi Yehudah, Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai were sitting together. Rabbi Yehudah opened the discussion and said: ‘How admirable are the deeds of this nation [the Romans who ruled Eretz Yisrael at the time]. They have established marketplaces, they have established bridges, they have established bath houses.’ Upon hearing Rabbi Yehudah’s praise of the Roman occupation Rabbi Yose remained silent. Rabbi Shimon, however, answered and said: ‘Everything they have established they established only to serve their own needs. They established market places to quarter harlots therein; they established bath houses in order to beautify their own bodies; and they built bridges in order to collect tolls from those who travel over them.’” (Shabbat 33b).
While the definition of public works – the purposes for which taxation moneys are reinvested in the home of taxpayers – may have changed, does this exchange not contain echoes of the very attitudes which differing elements of contemporary society have regarding spending by contemporary governments? Cynicism regarding government use of public funds has hardly changed (especially as costs balloon and government requirements increase).

The Shulchan Aruch – Code of Jewish Law – is prescriptive regarding taxation matters. Even when Jews lived in the Diaspora this subject was far from theoretical. In many societies tax payable to the government – often meaning in fact payable to the local ruler of a minor fiefdom or even a city – became the responsibility of the communal organisation that had to make its own decisions as to how to raise a specified sum. Beyond such situations, there were also many instances where communities were effectively totally or at least partially self-governing, such that the communal leadership had to make decisions as to who had to contribute to local expenditure needs and on what basis the required sums were levied on differing individuals.
And accordingly chapter 163 of Choshen Mishpat (that section of the Shulchan Aruch dealing with monetary matters) provides a framework for the imposition of the levies necessary to facilitate provision of community services and fulfilment of a community’s taxation obligations. Thus we find (163:1) that residents have the power to force each other to pay for security needs (e.g. the city wall), religious necessities (e.g. building a shule), welfare matters (including establishment of a charitable fund to assist the needy) and in fact all communal needs that individuals cannot provide for themselves. This is followed by extensive discussion as to how the tax should be levied, based on such matters as wealth generally or land ownership in particular. (Regarding the latter, there are also discussions as to whether the house lived in is included in the calculations – indeed echoing principles taken into account today regarding welfare eligibility and land tax imposition). Also subject to debate is the definition of residence for taxation liability. There is evidence of consideration of a progressive taxation basis (the rich pay more), and exemptions for scholars (shades of current arguments in Israel regarding exemptions for scholars from civic duty including army service for scholars, as well modern-day FBT exemptions in our communities for religious organisations employing certain functionaries). Interestingly, a catch-all phrase that affects all of these issues is the provision that in the end all that is done may follow “minhag hamedinah – the custom of the state”. Thus the provisions of secular law enter into this area of halachah as they do in so many other areas of law covered in Choshen Mishpat.

Indeed the adage that nothing is surer than death and taxes is in no way a product of the contemporary era. And even the relevant issues that are constantly in the forefront of contemporary discussion of such matters have all featured in our traditional writings, to which those currently involved should refer as they develop opinions.

Shabbat shalom,
Yossi