Benjamin Franklin is generally credited with the saying, “…in this world, nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes.” In this day and age, it seems debt and taxes are inescapable realities. Republicans, however, would have us believe that we can avoid them both. It sounds good in theory, like having cake without calories.
Our national debt is a real problem and needs to be addressed; however, it is worth noting that the debt increased more under George W. Bush than any other President and the debt limit was raised seven times. Now, in the age of Obama, Republicans have had a great religious awakening and are essentially holding the country hostage over raising the debt limit.
It seems to me that President Obama and the Democrats are willing to make deep (some would argue too deep) cuts to the budget. But the GOP won’t budge on raising taxes or even closing loopholes. At least they are consistent on this point. Since the 1970s, Republicans have been on a relentless mission to drive down tax rates, and they have been successful. It’s not too difficult to understand why… No one has ever liked taxes.
We read in the Bible that 2000 years ago Zacchaeus was despised because he was a tax collector. (Jesus loved him anyway.) There are only a couple of other instances when Jesus was specifically confronted with taxes. When asked to pay a temple tax, Jesus told Peter to go to the lake and catch a fish. Inside the mouth of the fish, he would find a coin to pay the tax. (Matthew 17: 24 – 27)
Later (in Matthew 22: 15-22), the Pharisees tried to trick Jesus by asking him if they should pay taxes to Rome. Asking to see a coin, he turned the question on them, “Whose portrait is that? And whose inscription?” Caesar’s,” they replied. Then he said to them, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”
As it relates to taxes, Jesus seems to shrug them off. He accepts them as a reality and has more important work to do. Of course, when you can pull a coin out of a fish, maybe money isn’t as important.
When we are talking about taxes, we are really asking who should pay and how much? George W. Bush lowered the tax rate for the highest incomes, as well as taxes on estates and investment income. According to the (non-partisan) Tax Policy Center, the result was the top 20% received 65% of the tax cuts with the top 1% garnering 38% of the benefits all by themselves. That means the bottom 80% of taxpayers split up about 35% of the Bush tax cuts.
These cuts did virtually nothing to stimulate our economy, but they did add about a trillion dollars to the federal deficit. (This was about the time Cheney was quoted as saying “Deficits don’t matter.”) Now, the top 1% controls a mind-blowing 40% of the total wealth in the US (as opposed to 20% 30 years ago) and the top 10% controls 70% of the nation’s wealth. That leaves 30% for 90% of the population. That huge discrepancy in wealth is not only immoral, but has to be unhealthy for our society as a whole.
The tax system is one way to balance the playing field. Of course, those with the money do not want to give up even a square inch. Maybe it’s just human nature to protect your slice (or three-quarters) of the pie. They can call it ‘supply side’ or ‘trickle down’ economics, but Gordon Gekko in the movie “Wall Street” was willing to call it what it truly is… “Greed.”
If Jesus skims over the topic of taxes, he has a lot to say about money, warning us over and over how easily it can become a corrupting influence. Among the many parables on the subject, there is the admonition to the Rich Young Ruler to sell all his possessions and follow him. When he can’t do it, Jesus says, “I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 19: 23) In other words, if money is preventing you from following God, then it means too much.
I believe Christians (including Republican Congressmen and their wealthy constituents) would do well to reread the parables concerning the dangers of trying to hang onto money, especially at the peril of the greater good. Because, in the end, we all know there is really only one certainty in this life….And you can’t take it with you.
This article can also be found at The Religious Left.
Tags: Christianity, Jesus, Matthew 17, Matthew 19, Matthew 22, politics, progressive, scriptures on taxes, taxes, Zacchaeus
It is next to impossible to use an ancient text as a guidebook for living in the 21st century. But it’s pretty clear that the one thing that got Jesus really PO’d was those who idolized money. (the other biggie was keeping people of the kingdom because they were unclean, women, etc.)
“Our national debt is a real problem and needs to be addressed; however, it is worth noting that the debt increased more under George W. Bush than any other President and the debt limit was raised seven times. Now, in the age of Obama, Republicans have had a great religious awakening and are essentially holding the country hostage over raising the debt limit.”
- While true that raising the debt ceiling has historically been “routine,” that Bush II raised it 7x and Reagan 17x, Obama’s request is the largest in history, even in inflation-adjusted dollars. In that sense, it is not unreasonable to raise concerns over the proposal.
“It seems to me that President Obama and the Democrats are willing to make deep (some would argue too deep) cuts to the budget.”
- Yes, but it isn’t their first rodeo. Six months ago Obama wanted the debt ceiling to be raised without cutting spending. Obama is making spending cuts part of the plan, but it’s crunch time and not likely to pass without something being offered.
“When we are talking about taxes, we are really asking who should pay and how much? George W. Bush lowered the tax rate for the highest incomes, as well as taxes on estates and investment income. According to the (non-partisan) Tax Policy Center, the result was the top 20% received 65% of the tax cuts with the top 1% garnering 38% of the benefits all by themselves. That means the bottom 80% of taxpayers split up about 35% of the Bush tax cuts.”
- According to the CBO, the top 10% of earners in the US pay 50% of all tax-related revenue. If you extend a tax cut, it stands to reason that they would garner a healthy amount of the reduction in pure dollars. The logic historically has been that top earners create jobs and heavy taxes stifle job creation. It’s hard to prove one way or the other, but it leaves the argument open for two things: 1) do the top earners really create jobs and would it really cause a problem to increase the burden of taxation; and 2) should tax cuts be applied differently? If you cut taxes on those not in the top earning category, you will force the top earners to burden an increasing share of the tax load and at some point you have to decide what’s a reasonable burden… especially when they already shoulder half of it.
“These cuts did virtually nothing to stimulate our economy, but they did add about a trillion dollars to the federal deficit.”
- It’s disingenuous to blame this solely on tax cuts. In reality, spending for the military and for homeland security has risen substantially since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001; Bush pushed through the largest expansion of Medicare in its history in 2003; in 2008, there was the bank bailout. But let’s not let Obama off the hook. In early 2009, he pushed through the stimulus which hasn’t yielded much fruit and pushed thru the seriously expensive health care law. Two economic recessions in the last 10 years also mean a reduction in actual tax dollars that can be collected as revenue. In both cases unemployment remained high for long after business activity began to recover, holding back both wages and the taxes that jobless workers would have paid on them.
“(This was about the time Cheney was quoted as saying “Deficits don’t matter.”)”
- It’s a philosophical point. The gov’t has run a deficit for most of the past 60 years without it being detrimental to our fiscal health. The only reason we had a surplus in the late 90s wasn’t due to any wizardry on the part of Clinton – government spending decreased relative to the rapidly growing economy (which resulted in organic growth of tax revenue), partly because of an absolute decline in military spending following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. Additionally, the interest on the deficit (which is really the drag on the economy) only makes up 5.7% expenditures (2010 figures).
“Now, the top 1% controls a mind-blowing 40% of the total wealth in the US (as opposed to 20% 30 years ago) and the top 10% controls 70% of the nation’s wealth. That leaves 30% for 90% of the population. That huge discrepancy in wealth is not only immoral, but has to be unhealthy for our society as a whole.
The tax system is one way to balance the playing field.”
- The most recent complete data from the CBO is from 2007. CBO figured in that year more than half of all federal taxes was paid by the top 10 percent of income earners, paying 55% of all federal taxes (income tax, payroll taxes, excise taxes and even the corporate income tax). Additionally, the top 10 % of earners pay a greater share of federal taxes now than they did before the Bush tax cuts, which Democrats constantly criticize as a giveaway to “the rich.” That comes in spite of lower tax rates at the top, not because of it. The reason the most affluent 10% pay a greater share of taxes is because they get a greater share of all income, from 37.5 percent in 2001 to 42 percent in 2007. Income is not the same as “control of wealth” but I have a fundamental issue with claiming “control of wealth.”
“Of course, those with the money do not want to give up even a square inch. Maybe it’s just human nature to protect your slice (or three-quarters) of the pie. They can call it ‘supply side’ or ‘trickle down’ economics, but Gordon Gekko in the movie “Wall Street” was willing to call it what it truly is… “Greed.””
- One way you can look at this is the richest pay, proportionately, the same % of the pie in taxes as they collect in income. You could argue it should be more… but at what point is it enough? Who becomes greedy then?
One more thing, with respect to “greed” and taxes:
One figure that gets a lot of attention is the percentage of individuals and married couples who pay zero federal income taxes. Those figures come from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. The TPC’s most recent report was released June 14, and it shows that this year 46.4 percent of “tax units” (individuals or married couples) had zero federal income tax liability. That’s because of various exemptions and tax credits aimed at reducing the income-tax burden on lower-income workers and families with children. The figure is down from 2008 and 2009, when the percentage topped out at 50.8 percent.
You make some good arguments Pat. I don’t disagree with many of your points, but have to respond to some of them:
1. The budget and federal debt needs to be addressed. I just find it disingenuous when Republicans try to blame Obama when they are largely responsible for the out-of-control spending. When Boehner says ‘it’s not business as usual anymore.’ Well, it was business as usual under Reagan and Bush (That’s 24 debt limit increases without blinking).
2. It is “crunch time” and Obama is offering deep spending cuts. What are the Republicans offering again?
3. By your own numbers, the top 10% contributes 50% of the taxes, yet the control 70% of the nation’s wealth. That’s the definition of ‘out-of-balance.’ The idea that job creation is the result of cutting taxes on the so-called ‘job creators’ is a myth. George W. Bush put on a grand experiment and it failed. (Luxury car and boat sales will probably go up, but that’s about it).
4 The trillion I site is lost revenue attributed specifically to the Bush tax cuts. The war in Iraq was another trillion – give or take a few hundred billion. Medicare expansion and bank bail-out were separate issues as well.
5. Do deficits matter or not? I guess the answer today is ‘yes’ and I would agree, so let’s move on… I would agree Clinton gets a lot of credit for a robust (eventually artificially robust) economy. But what Clinton does prove is that higher tax rates did not prevent job-creation or economic growth – or any of the scare tactics the Republican’s try to use to hold onto to their money.
6. The rich do not give as much as they take… That’s my point.
7. I agree we should close up tax loopholes on all individuals and corporations. At least let the Bush tax cuts expire. Perhaps raise the rate on the super wealthy and provide tax incentives for corporations to keep jobs in the US.
Anyway, thanks very much for responding.
Thought provoking post. I find it strange that Christians are so concerned with the welfare of the wealthy and seem to despise the poor for being such a bother.
I do know that when Jesus was a young man he spent his time lifting up those in need. Many of them were poor, and considered “undesirable” by the leaders of his day.
I don’t think you’d find Jesus hanging out with today’s social conservatives – cheering for their big business, protect the wealthy philosophy.
With the message of scarcity, strange things happen: kindness and generosity evaporate, vision dies, the the haves very quickly throw up barricades to the have-nots. Inequity grows larger, and those who have the pie congratulate themselves on their resourcefulness and their ability, forgetting God in all of it. And condemning others to a life of well-deserved poverty.
You make some really great points here, Jeff. I appreciate you sending me the link to this blog. It is worth noting that a lot on my friends on the Christian Right are content to quote Jesus whenever it agrees with their political agenda but seem to explain away the things that do not. I appreciate your voice among the others. God bless you, brother and I look forward to reading your book.
Shalom,
Ray
Well stated! A very sincere analysis.
Conservatives wanting to hold on to their money has nothing to do with Jesus’ teachings. Apples and oranges. You suggest that instead of keeping it, they should do what??? Give it to the government? Please… We’re called to give in the bible, but not to money grubbing politicians. Widows and orphans.
Stop acting like the government is a benevolent religious figure.
Medicare, Medicaid, social security, and federal grants cover a lot of widows and orphans.
Good points, but I think a couple of things are being overlooked:
* Charity is only charity if it’s voluntary. It’s a beautiful, noble, praiseworthy thing to give of your own funds to help someone in need. It’s another thing entirely to demand that those in authority take someone else’s funds to give to those in need.
* This entire discussion is based on the premise that the government is EFFICIENT in distributing funds to those in need, and seems to ignore the fact that the government is involved in far more than Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security. I reject that premise. Big-hearted people who want to help the poor often blindly assume that the government is the best way to get that help out. The government is made of the same corrupt, wealthy, heartless individuals that corporations are made of (unless the government consists only of a noble class of humanity somewhere that I’m not aware of), and I see no compelling reason to trust that they’ll care for the poor any more than anyone else.
* Nowhere in Scripture did Jesus command the government to take care of the poor. He commanded the CHURCH to take care of the poor. The government is not beholden to the moral imperatives of Christianity, nor should it be. If we outsource the church’s obligations to the government (such as distributing wealth), then why wouldn’t we outsource all aspects of Christian living to it? Why wouldn’t police just instantly forgive those who commit crimes? Because that’s not the government’s job.
* The government can’t give anything that it doesn’t first take from someone else.
1. I think it’s a form of community charity if a democracy votes to help some of its poorer members.
2. I know the government is not totally efficient, but we could wait forever for the perfect system. The government is involved in many things other than social security and Medicare… things like foodstamps, low-income housing, pubic education – all things I would consider to be positive for individuals and society at large. It’s a cynical position to say people in government or corporations are ‘corrupt, wealthy, and heartless.’ Most are just people like everyone else, trying to do the best the can.
3. Churches do a lot of good, but they are not capable of funding programs on the same scale as the government. If a person is hungry, I really don’t think they care whether a meal comes from the church, government, or person down the street. I don’t think God cares either.
4. All governments “redistribute wealth” according to their priorities – and I can understand that being upsetting to some extent. I was pretty upset when my taxes were being spent on a war I thought was unjustified. But I don’t understand the moral outrage when someone’s tax dollars might be spent toward helping some person in need. But that’s just me.
Jesus commanded us to look after the poor and the destitute. He didn’t say to do it with government, but he didn’t say to do it without. He just said to do it. Period.
It’s naïve to think that charity can realistically accomplish that goal. Sure, charity and personal giving are great, but they are not going to make a dent in alleviating the problem of human suffering.
Jesus didn’t say to do it through government, but as of right now, it is the only realistic way to accomplish benefits worth noticing. If another non-governmental way is devised, that’s great, but until then, that’s all we got. That is, if you take the problem of poverty and human suffering seriously, as Jesus did.
It’s been my experience that most churches make a real effort to help out with problems of poverty and homelessness in their communities. But the problem is so much bigger than their capabilities. Of course, it’s also bigger than government’s capabilities, but so many more people would suffer and fall through the cracks if government weren’t involved. Now, if every Christian is willing to tithe 20% of their income to the problem….