60 Daniel Schi il

portrayed as(involuntary) insurance. To the contrary, in fact, Jewish texts have consistently proposed that the distribution of public funds be subject to means testing. Rabbi Sinclair summarizes the sources in this way: Jewish law instituted a means-test for recipients of communal funds. The Shulhan Arukh codified that public charity could not be given to those with capital assets of 200 zuz and above, or working capital of 50 zuz.(Both sums were sufficient to yield a year’s basic living expenses.) In addition, it stresses that the community must check the neediness of those who come claiming support for clothing from public funds (though not those who claim food, lest they die of hunger while they're waiting).... The economic argument of using public money efficiently is underpinned by a moral claim, that funds collected from individuals by the coercive powers of community taxation should be given to those who really need and deserve help.” Dr. Tamari, putting the argument even more succinctly, expresses the Jewish opposition to providing a universal benefit to all with this pithy observation:“granting benefits to the rich as well, would be legalized theft from the coerced taxpayer.”®® Means testing benefits is unquestionably the preferred Jewish strategy to do the work of poverty alleviation most effectively.

Second, the halakhah does not support taxes that have a redistributive effect. Taxation based on income should be levied in a manner proportionate to income, and those of means should then provide supplementary private funds to ensure that poverty is combated. A distributive tax can have the unintended effect of leaving those of means with the sense that they have already done“more than