Read My Lips -- Talking Taxes
Faith in the Public Square
Lompoc Record
May 11, 2008
Mark Twain wrote: “What is the difference between a taxidermist and a tax collector? The taxidermist takes only your skin.” Anti-tax sentiments like Twain's aren't a new phenomenon - Jesus was criticized for hanging out with tax collectors. So unpopular is the levying of taxes that no politician would dare run on a platform of raising taxes. He or she may make all sorts of promises about bringing benefits to the voter, but that politician would be foolhardy to say how he or she would pay for these benefits.
We live in a credit happy nation, with a consumer debt as large as the federal one. We're a bit like Wimpy - “I'd gladly pay you Tuesday, for a hamburger today.” As a result, we go to war, expend billions each week, and cut taxes. Politicians talk about cutting pork, but no one agrees as to what counts as pork. I don't like paying taxes any more than the next person, but if our government is going to provide us services, then we must pay for them.
The basic issue is the level of services we expect government to provide. The Constitution speaks of providing for the nation's defense and the general welfare of the people, but what does this involve? To answer the question, we must get beyond the “small vs. large government” debate by first recognizing that more than half our tax dollars go to fund the military and pay interest on the debt. Then there's Social Security and Medicare, both of which are designed to pay for themselves; however recipients will soon equal the number of payers. Government also provides for education, police and fire, roads and bridges, and more. It's true that some funds do get misused, but how much pork can be eliminated so that tax cuts pay for themselves? If that amount is really minimal, then what services are willing to give up?
Even if the definition of general welfare in the 18th century was rather narrow - that is, government didn't provide what charities once provided - must we not recognize that the context has changed. We are a much more diverse and larger community now than then. Even then the problems of providing for the poor and indigent were greater than traditional charities could address, and now the issues are broader and larger than ever. Only the government has access to the resources necessary to tackle the big issues of the day.
Despite our aversion to paying taxes - and I'm no more eager to pay them than the next person - it would seem that they are a necessity. Without them, the government services we receive - including roads and bridges, police and fire protection, hospitals and civil defense, would be impossible. So the next time you hear a politician talk about tax cuts, ask yourself what part of the common defense and the general welfare you're willing to do without.
Lompoc Record
May 11, 2008
Mark Twain wrote: “What is the difference between a taxidermist and a tax collector? The taxidermist takes only your skin.” Anti-tax sentiments like Twain's aren't a new phenomenon - Jesus was criticized for hanging out with tax collectors. So unpopular is the levying of taxes that no politician would dare run on a platform of raising taxes. He or she may make all sorts of promises about bringing benefits to the voter, but that politician would be foolhardy to say how he or she would pay for these benefits.
We live in a credit happy nation, with a consumer debt as large as the federal one. We're a bit like Wimpy - “I'd gladly pay you Tuesday, for a hamburger today.” As a result, we go to war, expend billions each week, and cut taxes. Politicians talk about cutting pork, but no one agrees as to what counts as pork. I don't like paying taxes any more than the next person, but if our government is going to provide us services, then we must pay for them.
The basic issue is the level of services we expect government to provide. The Constitution speaks of providing for the nation's defense and the general welfare of the people, but what does this involve? To answer the question, we must get beyond the “small vs. large government” debate by first recognizing that more than half our tax dollars go to fund the military and pay interest on the debt. Then there's Social Security and Medicare, both of which are designed to pay for themselves; however recipients will soon equal the number of payers. Government also provides for education, police and fire, roads and bridges, and more. It's true that some funds do get misused, but how much pork can be eliminated so that tax cuts pay for themselves? If that amount is really minimal, then what services are willing to give up?
The clause in the Constitution that allows for taxes states: “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States. ...” (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1).
Even if the definition of general welfare in the 18th century was rather narrow - that is, government didn't provide what charities once provided - must we not recognize that the context has changed. We are a much more diverse and larger community now than then. Even then the problems of providing for the poor and indigent were greater than traditional charities could address, and now the issues are broader and larger than ever. Only the government has access to the resources necessary to tackle the big issues of the day.
Consider Katrina: My congregation gave generously, as did many nonprofits, religious groups, and businesses. But the job was much too big for them to handle on their own. They played a role, but more was needed. Social Security was enacted in 1935 to provide a safety net for seniors who had fallen through the cracks. Unemployment benefits assist workers in paying the rent and feeding their families. And the list goes on.
If we believe that the nation's general welfare requires some kind of safety net, then we must face the question of how to pay for it. Payment requires taxation, but not all taxes are equal. Some would argue that everyone should pay the same amount or the same proportion - perhaps as a flat tax or as a sales or value-added tax. That seems fair, at first, but consider that a sales tax hits lower income people harder. The graduated nature of the income tax assumes that the wealthier one is, the more discretionary income one has, and thus is better able to contribute.
Despite our aversion to paying taxes - and I'm no more eager to pay them than the next person - it would seem that they are a necessity. Without them, the government services we receive - including roads and bridges, police and fire protection, hospitals and civil defense, would be impossible. So the next time you hear a politician talk about tax cuts, ask yourself what part of the common defense and the general welfare you're willing to do without.
Dr. Bob Cornwall is pastor of First Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) of Lompoc. He blogs at http://pastor
bobcornwall.blogspot.com and may be contacted at faithinthepublicsquare@gmail.com or P.O. Box 1056, Lompoc, CA 93438.
bobcornwall.blogspot.com and may be contacted at faithinthepublicsquare@gmail.com or P.O. Box 1056, Lompoc, CA 93438.
May 11, 2008
Comments