In "The Lord's Prayer" we ask for forgiveness for our transgressions, we ask for deliverance from the 'evil' in the world- and that evil is in fact mostly about the evil which we know exists within ourselves.
I define that evil as that which turns us away from the spirit of Christ, most specifically, that which turns us away from loving our neighbor as ourselves.
Recently, while in Washington D.C., I met a shop-owner's son who was himself quite successful. In the course of a couple of hours of discussion, he confided that "while he might not be as smart as you (me), he believes what he believes, and we should simply agree to disagree." He described himself as a "God and guns guy." He also admonished me for thinking people cannot be whatever they wanted but instead needed help. His view, quite clearly, was that those who aren't well-off, or had a home foreclosed on, or were duped in the financial crisis and lost money, as well as those who falter (or commit crimes or heaven forbid, have a baby out of wedlock), simply are more about being irresponsible and/or stupid (more stupid than the rest of us, certainly than HE was, and more irresponsible than HE was) - than they were about being actually in need, or having made an honest mistake.
I related to him the realities of the past decade, that wages were flat, that the wealthy reaped the benefits of the labors of others, that many who are wealthy were either born with it, or simply more fortunate than those who ALSO tried out good ideas, worked hard, but simply didn't have things work out as well. I further commented that 60% of those who declare bankruptcy do so because of a health care calamity. I also reminded him that energy costs increased by $3000 or MORE per family over the past ten years, while incomes increased almost not at all. I reminded him that increasing the wealth of the wealthy did not result in "a rising tide lifting all boats" as he asserted, but rather, while incomes of the wealthy quadrupled, the middle-class in fact stayed static, since 1981. Finally, I reminded him that cutting taxes on the wealthy did not, as he asserted, result in a massive in-flow of new revenue for the government, but instead in the 80's resulted in only a mild increase (and we should remember during the 80's we ran the government on debt - as well as much of the country), and in the 2000's while we also ran the government on debt, tax revenues fell sharply.
All of this was of no matter to the man I was talking to. He viewed those who were 'not making it' in society as simply not positive enough about their future, which in fact was really reflective of his view that they were 'being irresponsible', 'living above their means', or 'not working hard enough' All of which he said at various times and ALL of which are code for someone judging others as not as 'good' or worthy of success as he was. It also, conveniently, is a way to brush-off needing to do anything for them, to be concerned about whether they have enough money to buy bread, or pay for school lunch, or, pay more in taxes.
This morning Katherine Kersten complained that nearly half of Americans don't pay taxes. Of course what Ms. Kersten meant was that half don't pay FEDERAL income taxes, but she wasn't clear, and she wasn't clear on purpose. She wanted to create contempt and outrage (or so I suspect) that half of Americans don't have to pay "while the rest of us do." Yet she conveniently left out that in fact, when looking at the TOTAL taxes (state, local, and federal) paid, most Americans, from the very poorest to the very richest, pay nearly the same percentage of their incomes in taxes.
I respect very much the self-reliance, initiative and personal friendliness of virtually every conservative I know. They are personally stand-up guys and gals, they generally are willing to work hard; and, normally, other than reflexively blaming the government for their woes from time to time, they take personal responsibility for their work and actions.
Yet, I am also struck that this contempt for others which I see so often, from my new found friend/shop owner, to Ms. Kersten, represents a failure to see such contempt is not love, it is not compassion for those less fortunate, it is instead judgment. It is a proclamation of self-superiority and righteousness for being smarter (perhaps) or better educated, or perhaps just even luckier. It confers upon the less fortunate culpability for their misfortune, for their poverty. It rationalizes dismissing their plight; just as it rationalizes looking to tax them even more than we do now, for "how can it possibly be fair" that 49% of us don't pay taxes? (forgetting that they DO pay taxes, just not the same rates on the same taxes - in some, like income they pay little to none, while in others like sales tax, they pay a FAR higher percentage)
How can it be fair? I would ask in counter, how can it be fair to ask someone who makes $12/hour, who is trying to raise a child, to give $200 or $400 of their $24,000/year to the federal government to somehow "equalize" the system, when they already are paying $3500/year in total taxes AND have as little as $200/year in disposable income, when we CUT taxes on those making more than $250,000. Those people, by contrast, have on average roughly $75,000/year in disposable income. How can we rationalize asking the POOREST of us to make up for our debt because we think it is wrong to ask those who have seen enormous increases in their wealth over the past 30 years to help fund a government which primarily benefits them by creating infrastructure and an environment where their businesses can succeed?
When we are asked to love our neighbor, when we ask to be lead away from temptation and to be delivered from evil - do we really, truly think we are being asked to demand more from the poor? Are we being told to envy the wealthy and to be "aghast" that due to their vast fortunes they pay 50% of our federal income taxes? Are we supposed to be outraged that after we cut their taxes in half, they took steps (including union busting) to help their income quadruple, and by that simple math they pay 50% of federal income taxes, but this is unjust? Finally do we truly think being delivered from evil means being motivated to complain about "our fair share of taxes", demanding that the poor pay more so that we can pay less? Is our concern supposed to be about OURSELVES first, is it supposed to be to look with contempt and scorn on the poor as being stupid or worse, lazy?
As my wife reminds me, there certainly are plenty of the wealthiest among us who have, becasue they incorporated in Ireland or Bermuda, ALSO put themselves in a position to not pay ANY federal tax and not due to privation, but due to laws created to shelter their taxes thru loopholes? Do those of us who wrankle at the poor paying so little get equally riled up at the rich paying nothing? I have seen many conservatives who simply think the rich who do so are smart. If so, how do we pay for a government where taxing those who have the income is "unfair" and those who duck it are "smart" while in the same breath condeming the poorest who both can't afford it and can't duck it?
I do not ask why the poor do not pay federal income taxes, I ask why we think, in our topsey-turvey world, that the rich should pay less? We have cut their federal taxes by half, we have 60% of businesses paying NO federal income tax. Do we really think it just to ask the poor and lower middle class to balance our budget rather than look to those who duck taxes, or who don't pay anything at all? When we talk about "wanting" a flat tax, as unjust as that is, the truth is, we have one - if you look at state, local, and federal taxes combined. Do we really think it's right to demand more from those who have the least? Is that what Christ said? Is it following temptation or being lead from it to think there's any real chance we'll "fix" things by asking the poor, lower-middle class to pay tiny pittance the poorest of society that they could pay?
People should remember and understand, we created the federal income tax credit for the poor quite frankly because our fathers and grandfathers agreed that having the poorest pay income tax was unjust. It was asking those who frequently could barely afford to feed their families to contribute, when such contribution was mostly unneeded and put the burden for paying for a system on those who benefited least by it. They also recognized, by contrast it seems, that many poor and lower middle class work very hard, often holding down two and three jobs. We created 90% an 70% tax rates on the highest incomes, not to be confiscatory, but instead to give the wealthiest incentives to share profits. Now, since we've done away with those disincentives, of course the wealthy, being normal human beings, seek to keep more, and seek to ensure they are taxed less (or at least aren't again taxed more as we face these budgetary crises). So they complain about the "unfairness" of having the working poor pay nothing, and their Fox News/Tea Party mouthpieces take up the complaint - and so I ask, do you think Christ would demand the POOR pay more to cover what the rich used to cover? The same rich who've gotten fabulously more wealthy? Is that the Christian thing to do?
Fundamentally, the reason the number of people not paying taxes has increased so dramatically (from 24% in 1980 to 47% today), is that so many more people make so little when using inflation adjusted dollars. Perhaps our problem isn't that so many people are "lazy" or "cheating", perhaps instead it is that we have such a wildly skewed system, such a two-class system, that we are seing our injustices manifest in obvious ways, yet we're too blind to see the root of the injustice itself? I believe it is a tragedy that we have SO many who are so poor that they do not even make enough that their incomes qualify for taxation, not a tragedy that we do not demand what little pittance they could give. If love is forgiveness and sanctimonious judgment is a sin (as we are told in the Bible), then I must not so blithely judge, or atleast I'd better by just about perfect before I do (glass house) - to include judging my sanctimony as sin - and when I do that first, I will find myself looking to long down my nose at a far too steep an income curve. We have set our world upon it's head when we seek to make our society right by going after the weakest among us.
Thank you.
ReplyDeleteThank you for saying it so well.
The mindset you describe is straight out of Dickens, and astrue in our modern era as it was in the 1800s, a mindset of "if I've got mine, and you don't you must be doing something wrong, you should be more like me, because obviously I'm better than you are, more correct than you are. I find this particularly offensive in the movement among fundamentalist christians that equate financial success to their version of christianity, who equate financial success to direct approval by god.
While at the same time, some of those who have made the mmost money are now finally, belatedly, looking at prosecution by the SEC for fraud.
I would encourage our readers to look at both the home wrebsite of the Minneapolis FBI, and the national website. Look at their top ten list, how many are white collar crimes, and the amount involved. And then consider again how we equate wealth with other values; how much we excuse, how much we make big wealth a subject for celebrity rather than real accomplishment.
That idolizing is part of the problem in how we look at our financial regulation, how we look at valuing peoplle, how we look at what is a fair basis for taxation. It is all part of the same puzzle, just different pieces.
Thank you Pen, thank you. Part of why I sought you out to let me write on this blog, isntead of doing other things, was that I respect your character and your spirituality, and how it affects your world view, your understanding and your compassion towards others.
Thank you.
Thanks DG - my thrust here is that we have one screwed up world where we blame the poor for our problems and seek to protect the rich.
ReplyDelete"Then Jesus said to his disciples, 'I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.'" Matthew 19:23-24
ReplyDeleteJesus wasn't saying that wealth itself was bad, although He had no use for earthly wealth. Rather, Jesus rightly pointed out something we see today, especially in some sects of Christianity: wealth can become not the result of one's labors, but the object of desire itself, replacing God as the subject of devotion and worship.
A number of different evangelical preachers have come to the popular news as they preach a "Gospel of Wealth". This perversion of the Word of God seems to tell people that by obeying God's commandments that He will make you wealthy. While this is true, Jesus makes it very clear that the wealth one achieves is not material wealth. It is the spiritual wealth that comes from union with God that we acquire through our belief and devotion to God. By perverting this those that preach the "gospel of wealth" are perverting the Word of God and are indulging in heresy.
I don't think that the government should be involved in setting wages or prices. However, the government can, though its control over interstate commerce and its control over taxes give incentives for living wages to be paid to all, so that in a land like the United States, no one truly has to go to bed hungry.
It would be interesting to see how many people on the board of directors of various corporations actually consider themselves religious. Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists are all called by their faith to help the poor and to be fair to their fellow man. America, as a whole, is very charitable. Just look at Haiti or Indonesia after the earthquake and tidal wave. We send our ships and planes and supplies that we pay for with our taxes and then we all give a little more at that extra collection on Sunday to send even more food and medical supplies. Even within our own country people are still donating their time rebuilding houses along the gulf coast after Katrina. But then at the same time people cut jobs because they are not earning what Wall Street thinks they should and pay themselves huge bonuses when those lost jobs make the stock price go up a dollar. Or like Goldman Sachs, selling investments to people who think they are securing their future income, while at the same time betting those investments will fail. I think William F Buckley said it the best "The problem with Socialism is Socialism, the problem with Capitalism is Capitalists."
ReplyDeleteAnd Pen, done right a flat tax would not be unfair. Every serious person I have seen advocating one and every country that has implemented one exempts the first x amount of income. Most talk in the neighborhood of 40-50k, so about 90% of the people not currently paying taxes would still not pay taxes. The big benefit I see in it is it does away with the loopholes the wealthy use to hide money from the taxman. Of course, I did say done right it would not be unfair. As long as a majority of Congress (both parties) is bought out by their wealthy donors there is little chance it would be done right.
ReplyDeleteI've heard a lot of argument in support of a flat tax. However, it still ends up taxing unevenly. In that, if you exclude income up to $50,000 (for example) and then tax everything above that at 10%, a person who earns $60,000 a year is paying tax on 10,000 of income... ($1,000) and a person who earns $350,000 a year pays tax on $300,000 of income. The difference is that someone who earns $300,000 a year can afford to pay $30,000 in tax easier on $350,000 income than a person who pays $1,000 in tax on $60,000 income. Then, there is the enforcement. Are you going to have a flat 10% taken out and then have people issued large refunds? Or have everyone write checks in April?
ReplyDeleteOverall, the flat tax, while it sounds simplistic and that it would raise more money, isn't fundamentally fair either. What IS fair is closing more loopholes so that corporations have more incentive to pass profits to their workers in the form of higher wages, better working conditions, etc.
Ultimately, until wages become less stagnant, the American dream is going to stay just that, an impossible dream, for most Americans.
Yes but the point of an income tax is to raise money to run the government. A flat tax, once again done correctly, would be far more fair than what we currently have. Suppose you said that the first 30k was untaxed and you can add 10k to that for each dependent. A family of 5 could earn 70k and pay no taxes while the corp exec making 2 million would pay just under $200,000. Want to take bets on what the average tax paid is by people in that bracket right now? With deductions for mortgage interest and other things I bet it is well under $200,000. It would take some study to determine where to set the rates and where the rate kicks in (after 30k, 40k or ?) but if you do away with all the loopholes you can make a system that is more fair than what we have. No system will be completely fair, no matter what you do a few will end up not being able to afford their share and some will pay less than they can afford, but if you make the system simple it is harder to cheat and easier to adjust when you spot areas that need tweaking. And by the way I picked the 30k +10k per dependent exemption as I think I am pretty close to middle class and under that system I would pay within $100 a year of what I pay under the current system.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think something that would be helpful in living wages in the United States would be if Congress were to establish legislation that ended a lucerative practice: closing plants in the US and hiring workers overseas to do the same work at drastically less wages. I think US tax law should reflect that when a company closes a plant in the US and moves its operations overseas, the difference in wages between what it pays overseas and what it would pay in the US should be considered taxable income, subject to the full 36% corporate income tax rate. So, if a corporation closes a textile mill in Georgia where the workers earn $25 per hour and move it to China where they earn $3 per hour, the company would have taxable income of $22 per hour for every hour worked overseas. This would be a powerful incentive to keep jobs in the US.
ReplyDelete