Why Do They Do That? 3 – Poverty
We know the Bible commands us to take care of the poor, “the least of these,” and our neighbor. Moreover, Christians want to take care of them. Shouldn’t we, then, support efforts to create federal social programs to provide money and other necessities to the less fortunate?
No. For a variety of reasons.
Before getting into those reasons, though, let me state again that the issue is not whether to help the poor but how. Liberals and conservatives alike have plans they believe are best for the needy; somebody’s wrong. I hope to convince you that it is the liberal approach that is in error.
What’s Wrong with Cutting Them a Check?
Previously I argued that the Bible’s model for helping the poor is one that encourages and enables self-reliance and one that is mostly dependent on individual givers. We can see that the Bible teaches this for good reasons.
The first reason is the good of the recipient. First, human nature dislikes receiving charity. As Nietzsche put it, “Great indebtedness does not make men grateful, but vengeful; and if a little charity is not forgotten, it turns into a gnawing worm.” And then there are those who get used to it; it can create a cycle of dependency – either a person who doesn’t think he can get by on his own or, worse yet, one who doesn’t see any need to. Also, I think we can reasonably expect a difference between a gift from the anonymous government and from your friends and neighbors – the latter will carry more gratitude and sense of responsibility to the giver than the former.
The second reason is the good of the giver. Those who don’t believe the government should take care of the poor (i.e., conservatives) give about 4 times as much to charity as those who disagree (i.e., liberals). The problem here for believers is that we are not just called to care for the poor but also for the souls of the giver – if the giver gives unconsciously, even unwillingly, because he “gave at the office,” he loses out on the spiritual benefits of charity (not to mention the eternal benefits). Charity by proxy is not charity.
Limited Government Yet Again
The next problem with just cutting them a government check (federal at least) is that darned Constitution. It simply doesn’t permit federal funds to be spent on charity. The venerable James Madison said he couldn’t “lay his finger on that article in the Federal Constitution which granted a right of Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” If you don’t like this, the Constitution needs to be changed, not ignored.
Poor Lottery Winners
Next, simple lack of money is not the only reason many people are poor. It’s been said that if we divided up all the money in the country evenly, in a few years there would again be rich and poor. Our experience with lottery winners seems to support that – one estimate is that a third of lottery winners later file bankruptcy. Simply handing poor people money does not solve their problems, and handing them money without addressing the other problems wastes the money and probably exacerbates the other problems.
Welfare Reformed
The final argument against simply cutting poor people a check is that is hasn’t worked. Trillions of dollars have been spent on Great Society programs, and the poverty rate remained relatively constant. Liberals often explain this as our not having spent enough money, but they have yet to tell us how much would be enough or what changes would make welfare programs work.
Well, what worked were the reforms of the 90s that both encouraged and required welfare recipients to work. While the programs haven’t been perfect, they have not, as Sen. Obama recently admitted to Rick Warren, turned millions out on the streets. Instead, the welfare rolls finally started to shrink. The cure for poverty is not money but jobs.
The Government’s Role
The formula for wealth can be described as money + connections + opportunity + luck. The only component government really should provide is opportunity.
We’ve already discussed at length the notion that the government can stimulate the economy and encourage job creation through tax policy. Low taxes are more likely to create an environment in which people who want jobs can find them. High taxes – whether they’re levied to support welfare policies or not – deter economic growth and make it harder to find jobs.
“We’ve tried this, and it didn’t work,” say certain segments of the media and certain politicians.
Wrong: “the lowest income quintile saw a roughly 25% increase in their living standards from 1983 to 2005” as opposed to “centralized, tax-funded programs… [that slow] down the economy and encourages dependence. This was the lesson of President Johnson's ‘War on Poverty.’ Poverty won.”
Regulating Regulation
Another tool government has in its kit is regulation. Regulation is understandably a hot topic in recent days, but suffice it to say most reasonable people understand that a certain amount of regulation is necessary. In many areas, though, the existing amount is more than necessary.
Consider the case of a woman who has no real skills except African hair braiding. She can start up a little business doing hair and make a little money that she can use to feed her family and maybe make enough to expand her business or get an education and expand her skill set. The only problem comes when she’s not allowed to open up her little braiding business because state law requires a license to braid hair. Regulation, though necessary at times, can be a protection racket – creating barriers for entry in a field to keep competition as low and salaries as high as possible.
Some years ago a group tried to set up new businesses in India, Hong Kong, and New York City; time to get the necessary permits was compared. In India, it took a few hours; in Hong Kong, it took about a day; in New York, it took weeks. Care to rank the economic growth in those areas?
We’re always going to be in search of the proper level of regulation, but the answer is going to be less, not more.
Minimum Wages
What about the minimum wage? This is another place where conservatives are often maligned. It is not that we oppose helping people. It’s that we 1) don’t think government should command wages and 2) we don’t think raising the minimum wage does enough good to outweigh the harm – such as increasing costs across society and making unskilled laborers too expensive to be attractive. In short, the minimum wage doesn’t help poor people.
A Safety Net
We all know, and generally agree with, the maxim that it’s better to teach a man to fish than to give him a fish. So why would we set up a charity system to hand out fish?
You say, “Yeah, but it can keep them from starving to death right now!” It certainly can, and few conservatives oppose the notion of a safety net, but the problem is having a governmental (especially federal) safety net. This is where the community and the church should pick up the slack.
We can feed the hungry, house the homeless, and clothe the naked. There may be times when giving people cash is a good idea, though usually not. But the community should do this, not the government. (No one thinks we will, or even should, dismantle the existing federal net, but it certainly doesn’t need to be expanded.)
There are other things the community can do as well. We can help un- and under-skilled workers get new training – be it through new centers or just new uses of things like community colleges. We can create low or no cost day cares for low-income families. We can create job banks and referral programs from which employers who want to reach out to the poor can draw. Some churches already do these things; we need to do it more.
We shouldn’t be afraid to help the hungry, and we shouldn’t be afraid to try anything that can help the poor find good jobs, but we should be very leery of asking government to pay for it.
Conclusion
We want to help the needy, but in our desire to help the poor we need to make sure we actually help the poor. Intentions aren’t enough; we have to think through the various proposals and support those that can really lift people out of poverty.
Liberal programs based on government transfer payments – welfare – fail that test.
Next time we’ll look at the other big issue pressing on the minds of both the poor and the compassionate: health care reform.
Recommended reading:
The Liberal Temptation
What Do Evangelicals Want? 1
What Do Evangelicals Want? 3
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Friday, October 3, 2008
Priestly Slaves
Reflections on Leviticus
Lev 22 describes the correct handling of those sacrifices in which the priest gets a share. It has rules for who, how, and when it can be eaten.
Verses 10-11 strike me as interesting. No one outside of the priestly families can take part. The holiest man in Israel cannot eat this food. But the lowest slave can.
Those who have been bought with a price have a share in the priest’s things.
We have been bought with a price, and we now have a share in our great Priest’s things.
We once were slaves to sin, but now we are slaves to righteousness. And though we are rightfully called slaves – even if we are slaves by choice – God has also raised us up to be called sons and daughters.
Now we who were called "not my people" are not only His people but His family, "heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ."
Lev 22 describes the correct handling of those sacrifices in which the priest gets a share. It has rules for who, how, and when it can be eaten.
Verses 10-11 strike me as interesting. No one outside of the priestly families can take part. The holiest man in Israel cannot eat this food. But the lowest slave can.
Those who have been bought with a price have a share in the priest’s things.
We have been bought with a price, and we now have a share in our great Priest’s things.
We once were slaves to sin, but now we are slaves to righteousness. And though we are rightfully called slaves – even if we are slaves by choice – God has also raised us up to be called sons and daughters.
Now we who were called "not my people" are not only His people but His family, "heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ."
"Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God!
How unsearchable his judgments,
and his paths beyond tracing out!"
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Half a Blue Parakeet
A review of The Blue Parakeet by Scot McKnight (Zondervan, 2008):
This book has proven somewhat difficult to review for the simple reason that I know (in the web 2.0 sense) the author. Scot McKnight blogs at JesusCreed – one of the few blogs I read pretty much every day.
Given past interactions with Scot, I expected to have some issues with what he’s written here, but I never expected to react as I have.
Where’s the Rest of the Book?
Using a blue parakeet as a metaphor for those scriptures that don’t conform to our preconceived notions, McKnight challenges us to read the Bible in new ways. He says most modern Christians recognize the need to determine what part of the biblical text is actually meant to apply today, but they either do it with no real system to guide them and so produce excessive innovation (“reading to retrieve”) or with an excessive commitment to tradition and so are unable to recognize weaknesses in their theology (“reading through tradition”).
The Blue Parakeet calls us to approach the Bible using a hybrid method of reading the Bible with tradition – willing to innovate but interacting with our forefathers so as not to deviate from their wisdom unnecessarily (Chapter 2).
McKnight then asserts that the proper way to read the Bible is as a story, and I started wondering when he was going to defend this position.
Next the book lays out some bad ways to approach the Bible – as a rulebook, as a collection of promises, as an inkblot (i.e., so that it reflects the reader rather than the author), treating one author as the key to all the others, or as a puzzle to be solved – once solved, it serves as the key to interpreting all Bible passages (Ch 3).
It is without any apparent sense of irony that McKnight then tells us that the way to read the Bible is as a story – a particular story. He doesn’t cotton to the old version of the story as “creation, fall, and redemption;” he sees the story as “creating Eikons” (his shorthand for “person created in the image of God”), “cracked Eikons” (i.e., the fall), “covenant community,” “Christ, the Perfect Eikon, redeems,” and “consummation.” He offers themes for these plot points: “oneness, otherness, otherness expands, one in Christ, and perfectly one.” (Postmoderns love “community” and the word “other.”)
The book then asserts that every part of the Bible is a “wiki-story” (mini-story that retells at least some of the elements) of that overarching story. The only way to make sense of “Blue Parakeets,” we’re told, is by viewing them in the context of this Story (Ch 4-5).
By this point in the book I’ve realized that Scot’s not planning on defending any of these statements. He makes assertions, and he expects you to just believe him. He mentions other authors who say we should read the Bible as story, but he doesn’t even punt to them for the proof – he just mentions that they teach this too. Ditto on the makeup of the story. He says his plot is the “only plot the church has ever had” (p 68 in advance reader edition), and he mentions Irenaeus, but he doesn’t defend his interpretation of the plot, and my (admittedly quick) scan of Proof of the Apostolic Teaching didn’t come up with the plot Scot uses.
At this point I’m a bit grumpy with Scot McKnight. I felt like the most important part of the book was missing. You can’t just make undefended assertions when you’re asking people to embrace a completely different way of doing something. Why should I believe the Bible is a collection of mini-stories of an overarching story? Why should I believe his plot is the correct one? How exactly is Philippians or 1 Peter a “wiki-story” of this plot? These are question this book should have answered if it wanted to be taken seriously.
Please note that I’m not disagreeing with the method taught in this book. I do, in fact, think there’s an overarching narrative in the scriptures and that it’s important to keep it in view while studying them. My problem is not what he teaches; I’m saying he needs to defend this method so that readers can judge whether or not it’s a valid way to approach the scriptures.
Pot Meet Kettle
So my first problem with this book was the pattern of assertions where arguments were warranted. My second problem was that McKnight was apparently unaware that he was creating a system for approaching the Bible very much like one he’d already attacked.
The book tells us that the Bible is one Story from beginning to end that holds the key to understanding the smaller parts. We’re told, “Once you get the hang of reading the Bible this way, you can then map the story of each author of the Bible” (p68).
Does this not sound like the “puzzle” method of approaching the Bible? It appears to me that we’re taking the pieces and assembling them into something of our own devising and using that as a key for unlocking the scriptures.
McKnight tells us, “puzzling together the pieces we find in the Bible into a system is impossible" (p51), but he’s done just that.
The errors of the puzzle method, McKnight says, are it “presumes that we know what God was doing behind the Bible before the Bible was written” (p50) and “this approach nearly always ignores the parts of the puzzle that don’t fit” (p51). Both of these statements can be applied to his method.
The Balance of the Book
After laying out the “Story” by which we must learn to read the Bible, McKnight moves on to the manner in which we should read the Bible in Part 2. Again, the argumentation is a bit light, but he makes otherwise good (and less controversial) points.
He tells us to view the Bible as communication from and a means to relationship with God. Further, if we do not read to listen to, absorb, and do what God tells us in the scriptures we’ve wasted our time. Finally, he reminds us that tradition and the Spirit should guide implementing what we read.
In Part 3 he discusses the implementation in more detail. We all know we don’t do everything the Bible says; we all have some kind of system for determining what we think should be applied today. “As we read the Bible and locate each item in its place in the Story, as we listen to God speak to us in our world through God’s ancient Word, we discern – through God’s Spirit and in the context of our community of faith – a pattern of how to live in our world” (p 129, emphases in original).
Unfortunately that is where his discussion of “patterns of discernment” stops. It’s a very subjective approach. Postmoderns will no doubt say it’s very modern of me to think we need some objective procedures, but we’ve seen just how far following the “Spirit” (who so frequently sounds just like me) and our “community of faith” (be they Mormons, liberation theologians, or oneness Pentecostals) can take us off the reservation all too often.
McKnight then demonstrates his method by addressing the question of women in church leadership in Part 4. Here the weaknesses of his book truly shine forth. We get one part appeal to the “Story” – which he appears to have pulled out of thin air – one part argument from oft-ignored biblical passages and new archeological finds, and one part appeal to popular sentiment. His case is not convincing mostly because of his repeated appeal to his undefended “Story.” (BTW, I oscillate between complementarian and egalitarian.)
Summary
I spent a lot of time being angry with Scot McKnight* mostly because this book could have been so much more. I wish he had fleshed out his “Story” and “discernment” sections and then turned the section on women in ministry into a separate book. Instead he tried to do too much and achieved little.
As it stands, I cannot recommend the book. If you really want to know what McKnight says here, the unnumbered last chapter called “Now What?” contains a succinct summary of his method. Normally such chapters are good reviews but dispense with the author’s argument; since this book contains no argument, you lose nothing by reading only that chapter.
Rating:
Must Read
Recommended Reading
Worth Reading
[Not Recommended]
Avoid This Book
* Is this the danger of reviewing books from people you know? My feelings were rather like a teacher disappointed in a student I was sure could do better. Go figure.
This book has proven somewhat difficult to review for the simple reason that I know (in the web 2.0 sense) the author. Scot McKnight blogs at JesusCreed – one of the few blogs I read pretty much every day.
Given past interactions with Scot, I expected to have some issues with what he’s written here, but I never expected to react as I have.
Where’s the Rest of the Book?
Using a blue parakeet as a metaphor for those scriptures that don’t conform to our preconceived notions, McKnight challenges us to read the Bible in new ways. He says most modern Christians recognize the need to determine what part of the biblical text is actually meant to apply today, but they either do it with no real system to guide them and so produce excessive innovation (“reading to retrieve”) or with an excessive commitment to tradition and so are unable to recognize weaknesses in their theology (“reading through tradition”).
The Blue Parakeet calls us to approach the Bible using a hybrid method of reading the Bible with tradition – willing to innovate but interacting with our forefathers so as not to deviate from their wisdom unnecessarily (Chapter 2).
McKnight then asserts that the proper way to read the Bible is as a story, and I started wondering when he was going to defend this position.
Next the book lays out some bad ways to approach the Bible – as a rulebook, as a collection of promises, as an inkblot (i.e., so that it reflects the reader rather than the author), treating one author as the key to all the others, or as a puzzle to be solved – once solved, it serves as the key to interpreting all Bible passages (Ch 3).
It is without any apparent sense of irony that McKnight then tells us that the way to read the Bible is as a story – a particular story. He doesn’t cotton to the old version of the story as “creation, fall, and redemption;” he sees the story as “creating Eikons” (his shorthand for “person created in the image of God”), “cracked Eikons” (i.e., the fall), “covenant community,” “Christ, the Perfect Eikon, redeems,” and “consummation.” He offers themes for these plot points: “oneness, otherness, otherness expands, one in Christ, and perfectly one.” (Postmoderns love “community” and the word “other.”)
The book then asserts that every part of the Bible is a “wiki-story” (mini-story that retells at least some of the elements) of that overarching story. The only way to make sense of “Blue Parakeets,” we’re told, is by viewing them in the context of this Story (Ch 4-5).
By this point in the book I’ve realized that Scot’s not planning on defending any of these statements. He makes assertions, and he expects you to just believe him. He mentions other authors who say we should read the Bible as story, but he doesn’t even punt to them for the proof – he just mentions that they teach this too. Ditto on the makeup of the story. He says his plot is the “only plot the church has ever had” (p 68 in advance reader edition), and he mentions Irenaeus, but he doesn’t defend his interpretation of the plot, and my (admittedly quick) scan of Proof of the Apostolic Teaching didn’t come up with the plot Scot uses.
At this point I’m a bit grumpy with Scot McKnight. I felt like the most important part of the book was missing. You can’t just make undefended assertions when you’re asking people to embrace a completely different way of doing something. Why should I believe the Bible is a collection of mini-stories of an overarching story? Why should I believe his plot is the correct one? How exactly is Philippians or 1 Peter a “wiki-story” of this plot? These are question this book should have answered if it wanted to be taken seriously.
Please note that I’m not disagreeing with the method taught in this book. I do, in fact, think there’s an overarching narrative in the scriptures and that it’s important to keep it in view while studying them. My problem is not what he teaches; I’m saying he needs to defend this method so that readers can judge whether or not it’s a valid way to approach the scriptures.
Pot Meet Kettle
So my first problem with this book was the pattern of assertions where arguments were warranted. My second problem was that McKnight was apparently unaware that he was creating a system for approaching the Bible very much like one he’d already attacked.
The book tells us that the Bible is one Story from beginning to end that holds the key to understanding the smaller parts. We’re told, “Once you get the hang of reading the Bible this way, you can then map the story of each author of the Bible” (p68).
Does this not sound like the “puzzle” method of approaching the Bible? It appears to me that we’re taking the pieces and assembling them into something of our own devising and using that as a key for unlocking the scriptures.
McKnight tells us, “puzzling together the pieces we find in the Bible into a system is impossible" (p51), but he’s done just that.
The errors of the puzzle method, McKnight says, are it “presumes that we know what God was doing behind the Bible before the Bible was written” (p50) and “this approach nearly always ignores the parts of the puzzle that don’t fit” (p51). Both of these statements can be applied to his method.
The Balance of the Book
After laying out the “Story” by which we must learn to read the Bible, McKnight moves on to the manner in which we should read the Bible in Part 2. Again, the argumentation is a bit light, but he makes otherwise good (and less controversial) points.
He tells us to view the Bible as communication from and a means to relationship with God. Further, if we do not read to listen to, absorb, and do what God tells us in the scriptures we’ve wasted our time. Finally, he reminds us that tradition and the Spirit should guide implementing what we read.
In Part 3 he discusses the implementation in more detail. We all know we don’t do everything the Bible says; we all have some kind of system for determining what we think should be applied today. “As we read the Bible and locate each item in its place in the Story, as we listen to God speak to us in our world through God’s ancient Word, we discern – through God’s Spirit and in the context of our community of faith – a pattern of how to live in our world” (p 129, emphases in original).
Unfortunately that is where his discussion of “patterns of discernment” stops. It’s a very subjective approach. Postmoderns will no doubt say it’s very modern of me to think we need some objective procedures, but we’ve seen just how far following the “Spirit” (who so frequently sounds just like me) and our “community of faith” (be they Mormons, liberation theologians, or oneness Pentecostals) can take us off the reservation all too often.
McKnight then demonstrates his method by addressing the question of women in church leadership in Part 4. Here the weaknesses of his book truly shine forth. We get one part appeal to the “Story” – which he appears to have pulled out of thin air – one part argument from oft-ignored biblical passages and new archeological finds, and one part appeal to popular sentiment. His case is not convincing mostly because of his repeated appeal to his undefended “Story.” (BTW, I oscillate between complementarian and egalitarian.)
Summary
I spent a lot of time being angry with Scot McKnight* mostly because this book could have been so much more. I wish he had fleshed out his “Story” and “discernment” sections and then turned the section on women in ministry into a separate book. Instead he tried to do too much and achieved little.
As it stands, I cannot recommend the book. If you really want to know what McKnight says here, the unnumbered last chapter called “Now What?” contains a succinct summary of his method. Normally such chapters are good reviews but dispense with the author’s argument; since this book contains no argument, you lose nothing by reading only that chapter.
Rating:
Must Read
Recommended Reading
Worth Reading
[Not Recommended]
Avoid This Book
* Is this the danger of reviewing books from people you know? My feelings were rather like a teacher disappointed in a student I was sure could do better. Go figure.
Friday, September 19, 2008
Self-Hating Christians
By now you’ve probably heard about Ray Boltz’s announcement that’s he’s gay. One of his comments really struck me:
“I didn’t hate myself anymore, so in that sense I felt closer to God.”
At the risk of hyperbole, I want to say this to all Christians: If you don’t hate yourself, at least a little, you aren’t doing it right.
I’m not going to enter into the debate about whether people are “born” gay or not – that really is above my pay grade.
It’s also beside the point.
You see, I’m born an adulterer. I’m also born a liar, thief, idolater, and a rebel to the core.
A lot of bad things come very naturally to me. And to you too. We all have a natural tendency to sin, though the sins differ. In all of us there is supposed to be a struggle between the natural man and the Spirit.
It was this that caused the apostle to say, “What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death?” (Rom 7:24)
All the greatest saints have followed that pattern. If you’re not growing in the sense of your own sinfulness, you’re not growing in Christ.
Our culture tells Christians, “You don’t have to hate yourself anymore!” Then they give in – to lust, to alcohol, to hatred or temper or pride or greed or any number of other things that are both completely natural and utterly sinful.
We are supposed to fight our sinful nature. We’re going to lose. We’re then supposed to get back up, ask for forgiveness, and move on.
And we live caught between the two truths that we are worthless and we are of inestimable value to God.
“I didn’t hate myself anymore, so in that sense I felt closer to God.”
At the risk of hyperbole, I want to say this to all Christians: If you don’t hate yourself, at least a little, you aren’t doing it right.
I’m not going to enter into the debate about whether people are “born” gay or not – that really is above my pay grade.
It’s also beside the point.
You see, I’m born an adulterer. I’m also born a liar, thief, idolater, and a rebel to the core.
A lot of bad things come very naturally to me. And to you too. We all have a natural tendency to sin, though the sins differ. In all of us there is supposed to be a struggle between the natural man and the Spirit.
It was this that caused the apostle to say, “What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death?” (Rom 7:24)
All the greatest saints have followed that pattern. If you’re not growing in the sense of your own sinfulness, you’re not growing in Christ.
Our culture tells Christians, “You don’t have to hate yourself anymore!” Then they give in – to lust, to alcohol, to hatred or temper or pride or greed or any number of other things that are both completely natural and utterly sinful.
We are supposed to fight our sinful nature. We’re going to lose. We’re then supposed to get back up, ask for forgiveness, and move on.
And we live caught between the two truths that we are worthless and we are of inestimable value to God.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Why Keep Taxes Low?
Why do they do that? 2 – Conservatives and taxes
Progressives, Democrats, and other proponents of a strong, involved central government can make a pretty compelling case for raising taxes:
Isn’t it time the rich paid their fair share? Shouldn’t the oil companies, which are making record profits while the American consumer struggles to buy gas, give some of their largess to help the poor? With all the concerns facing the average American family – from daily living to health care, college, and retirement – we need to change our economic policy to meets the needs of the little guy rather than giving huge tax breaks to the rich while running up deficits that our grandchildren will have to pay off.
This argument has tremendous emotional appeal. What it lacks is truth.
Their Fair Share
First I need to say this “fair share” line is always powerful because it invokes in the hearers class envy (aka covetousness). “Rich” is a relative term and it is usually defined as those with more than me. This talk always turns into punishing people for having the unmitigated gall to succeed.
The Bible has a lot to say about treating people differently based on how much money they have. It says don’t do it. Repeatedly. Though you usually see the example of looking down on the poor, the opposite is the same sin.
Fair? Demagoguery vs Facts
When we hear that the rich need to pay a “fair share” of taxes, what no one can tell you is what constitutes “fair” – other than “more.”
(With our graduated income tax the general feeling seems to be that the rich should pay a higher tax on their riches. It’s interesting that those who turn to the Bible to defend the idea of taking money from one group and giving it to another never talk about the fact that the biblical system of the tithe “taxed” everyone at exactly the same rate. Everyone paid the same proportion of their income, and even the poor were expected to tithe as long as they had income.)
When politicians decry a tax code that “benefits the rich” rather than making them pay their fair share, we should ask them what is enough.
In 2006, the top 1% of American taxpayers earned 22% of the total income but paid 40% of the nation’s income tax revenues. The top 50% paid 97.1% of income taxes; the other half paid 2.9%. Families in the middle fifth of earners paid an effective tax rate of 2.9% (in 2004); the top 1% paid an effective rate almost 7 times higher – 19.6%.
For all the hand-wringing over oil company profits, the truth is Exxon Mobil makes $1400/second in profits and pays $4000/second in taxes.
Does the top half need to pay all the taxes? Or do we want to push that burden onto the top quarter? What is enough? How do we justify it?
The Morality of Taxes
As we consider how much is “enough” from those we define as rich, the question should be asked: Is there a limit at which taking more is wrong?
One, you’re taking away people’s rightful property. That’s stealing if anyone else does it.
Second, the power to take people’s possessions away is dangerous. You can take too much, and you can damage yourself by taking with the wrong attitude. Are we asking the rich to shoulder a reasonable share of the burden, or are we punishing them? Are we spreading around responsibility, or are we discouraging success?
Most of all, we need to ask: Are we taxing the rich to help the poor, or are we seeking funds for our pet projects?
Limited Government Again
All too often this seems to turn into funds for pet projects. Listen to the politicians today talk about the need to raise taxes; we have to pay for healthcare, college, infrastructure, and education – however they may paint it as helping the poor, there is a certain desire to build their dream [pick one] system.
A great many of those dream projects fall outside of the powers allowed the federal government. Even at the state or local level we should still ask whether government needs to do these things.
The important truth is that government has no money of its own; it only has what it takes from you and me. It is up to us to watch that government only takes what it absolutely needs for what is truly necessary to do in the public interest.
Taxes vs Economic Growth
Generally, low taxes are what’s in the public’s best interest. Taxes siphon energy out of the economy.
This is certainly true of taxing the “rich.” A dollar taken from the wealthy is estimated to take $5 out of the economy. The rich don’t store their money in mattresses; they invest (providing capital), buy stuff (putting money into the economy), and, if they have a business, re-invest (creating jobs).
Raising taxes gives the money to an amazingly inefficient bureaucracy to provide transfer payments and programs for the poor that all too often discourage self-sufficiency and encourage dependence and other self-destructive habits (e.g., multi-generational welfare families).
Lowering taxes on everyone, but especially the “rich,” energizes the economy and generates an environment where “the rich get richer” and in the process create jobs, rising incomes, and more opportunity for everyone – especially the poor.
This is often called supply-side economics. Detractors call it “voodoo” and “trickle down” economics. But the truth is it works.
It worked when JFK tried it. It worked when Reagan did it. Most recently it worked when George W. Bush did it. And it has worked everywhere it has been tried.
Though Democrats generally deny it, even Sen. Obama has implicitly admitted that raising taxes is bad for the economy – suggesting that lowering them would be good.
Finally, if you still want to tax the rich, try this exercise: Quit your job. Now go ask a poor man for a job. Let me know how that works for you.
Tax Cuts and Deficits
If tax cuts are so good, why do they cause deficits?
They don’t. As the links above show, tax cuts increase economic activity and eventually increase tax revenue.
Every time a tax cut is proposed someone comes out with numbers showing how much the cut would cause the deficit to grow. Those numbers always assume no growth in the economy and thus tax revenues.
But we’ve had tax cuts, and we have deficits – why, if they’re so stimulating?
Tax cuts will eventually result in higher revenues. If, however, spending outpaces revenue, deficits result. Spending has been out of sight. Raising taxes will not cure our deficits long term. Fiscal discipline will be required.
Next Time
Here I’ve tried to show that keeping taxes low is good for the economy – including the poor. Next time I’ll look at poverty more closely.
Progressives, Democrats, and other proponents of a strong, involved central government can make a pretty compelling case for raising taxes:
Isn’t it time the rich paid their fair share? Shouldn’t the oil companies, which are making record profits while the American consumer struggles to buy gas, give some of their largess to help the poor? With all the concerns facing the average American family – from daily living to health care, college, and retirement – we need to change our economic policy to meets the needs of the little guy rather than giving huge tax breaks to the rich while running up deficits that our grandchildren will have to pay off.
This argument has tremendous emotional appeal. What it lacks is truth.
Their Fair Share
First I need to say this “fair share” line is always powerful because it invokes in the hearers class envy (aka covetousness). “Rich” is a relative term and it is usually defined as those with more than me. This talk always turns into punishing people for having the unmitigated gall to succeed.
The Bible has a lot to say about treating people differently based on how much money they have. It says don’t do it. Repeatedly. Though you usually see the example of looking down on the poor, the opposite is the same sin.
Fair? Demagoguery vs Facts
When we hear that the rich need to pay a “fair share” of taxes, what no one can tell you is what constitutes “fair” – other than “more.”
(With our graduated income tax the general feeling seems to be that the rich should pay a higher tax on their riches. It’s interesting that those who turn to the Bible to defend the idea of taking money from one group and giving it to another never talk about the fact that the biblical system of the tithe “taxed” everyone at exactly the same rate. Everyone paid the same proportion of their income, and even the poor were expected to tithe as long as they had income.)
When politicians decry a tax code that “benefits the rich” rather than making them pay their fair share, we should ask them what is enough.
In 2006, the top 1% of American taxpayers earned 22% of the total income but paid 40% of the nation’s income tax revenues. The top 50% paid 97.1% of income taxes; the other half paid 2.9%. Families in the middle fifth of earners paid an effective tax rate of 2.9% (in 2004); the top 1% paid an effective rate almost 7 times higher – 19.6%.
For all the hand-wringing over oil company profits, the truth is Exxon Mobil makes $1400/second in profits and pays $4000/second in taxes.
Does the top half need to pay all the taxes? Or do we want to push that burden onto the top quarter? What is enough? How do we justify it?
The Morality of Taxes
As we consider how much is “enough” from those we define as rich, the question should be asked: Is there a limit at which taking more is wrong?
One, you’re taking away people’s rightful property. That’s stealing if anyone else does it.
Second, the power to take people’s possessions away is dangerous. You can take too much, and you can damage yourself by taking with the wrong attitude. Are we asking the rich to shoulder a reasonable share of the burden, or are we punishing them? Are we spreading around responsibility, or are we discouraging success?
Most of all, we need to ask: Are we taxing the rich to help the poor, or are we seeking funds for our pet projects?
Limited Government Again
All too often this seems to turn into funds for pet projects. Listen to the politicians today talk about the need to raise taxes; we have to pay for healthcare, college, infrastructure, and education – however they may paint it as helping the poor, there is a certain desire to build their dream [pick one] system.
A great many of those dream projects fall outside of the powers allowed the federal government. Even at the state or local level we should still ask whether government needs to do these things.
The important truth is that government has no money of its own; it only has what it takes from you and me. It is up to us to watch that government only takes what it absolutely needs for what is truly necessary to do in the public interest.
Taxes vs Economic Growth
Generally, low taxes are what’s in the public’s best interest. Taxes siphon energy out of the economy.
This is certainly true of taxing the “rich.” A dollar taken from the wealthy is estimated to take $5 out of the economy. The rich don’t store their money in mattresses; they invest (providing capital), buy stuff (putting money into the economy), and, if they have a business, re-invest (creating jobs).
Raising taxes gives the money to an amazingly inefficient bureaucracy to provide transfer payments and programs for the poor that all too often discourage self-sufficiency and encourage dependence and other self-destructive habits (e.g., multi-generational welfare families).
Lowering taxes on everyone, but especially the “rich,” energizes the economy and generates an environment where “the rich get richer” and in the process create jobs, rising incomes, and more opportunity for everyone – especially the poor.
This is often called supply-side economics. Detractors call it “voodoo” and “trickle down” economics. But the truth is it works.
It worked when JFK tried it. It worked when Reagan did it. Most recently it worked when George W. Bush did it. And it has worked everywhere it has been tried.
Though Democrats generally deny it, even Sen. Obama has implicitly admitted that raising taxes is bad for the economy – suggesting that lowering them would be good.
Finally, if you still want to tax the rich, try this exercise: Quit your job. Now go ask a poor man for a job. Let me know how that works for you.
Tax Cuts and Deficits
If tax cuts are so good, why do they cause deficits?
They don’t. As the links above show, tax cuts increase economic activity and eventually increase tax revenue.
Every time a tax cut is proposed someone comes out with numbers showing how much the cut would cause the deficit to grow. Those numbers always assume no growth in the economy and thus tax revenues.
But we’ve had tax cuts, and we have deficits – why, if they’re so stimulating?
Tax cuts will eventually result in higher revenues. If, however, spending outpaces revenue, deficits result. Spending has been out of sight. Raising taxes will not cure our deficits long term. Fiscal discipline will be required.
Next Time
Here I’ve tried to show that keeping taxes low is good for the economy – including the poor. Next time I’ll look at poverty more closely.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)